#26 - Essayist: Common sense, which is always progressing

[asuper]

Hello,
I was wondering if someone could explain the correct and incorrect answers for this question and give me some feedback on my thought process through each answer?

It is asking from the following statements, which MBT. So, I guess my my thinking looked like:

Common sense-->Collection of theories tested and found useful
New theories that satisfy the necessary condition gradually replace the old ones in the body of common sense which is why common sense is always progressing.
However, its slow so there will always be theories that are no longer useful within common sense

A) wouldnt all theories not to have been found useful never be absorbed? Also, it leaves out withstanding the test of time
B)attractive,but is this wrong because its not that they are less useful its that they are obsolete? so it doesnt go far enough?
c) frequency is unrelated
D) attractive but the last part of the sentence says the body of common sense will ALWAYS contain obsolete theories
E) at first glance, i thought; unrelated. I dont know why. I mean it makes sense that some theories are not being absorbed. no pun intended but is this literally a common sense answer?

[Francis O'Rourke]

Hi asuper!

It looks like you have a good understanding of this argument. I would caution you against intrepreting the first statement as a conditional in exactly the way that you did.

Often times, we can read statements of the form A is B as A B. For example Dogs are Mammals can be diagrammed as D M

However the the statement Smith is the Prime Minister is better diagrammed as S PM, since Smith is the prime minister, and the prime minister is smith.

There is an ambiguity in our language about what the word "is" means sometimes, and since this essayist does not seem to be crafting a conditional argument, it may not be best to interpret the first sentence in conditional terms.


Answer choice (A) is unproven. The essayist makes no claims about the future usefulness of "new theories that have not yet been found to be more useful than any theory currently part of common sense."

Answer choice (B) is also unproven. The essayist does not compare the usefulness of theories that are both part of common sense. The essayist only focuses on the comparison between the ones that are part of common sense and the ones that are not part of common sense.

Answer choice (C) discusses the reason why new theories are not absorbed more quickly into common sense. The essayist however does not give us any reason for why this is. This answer is also unproven.

Answer choice (D) is possible but not proven. We know that some theories come into common sense and replace older theories. This answer goes too far and states that every theory in common sense will eventually be replaced by a more useful new theory. It is possible that there is one theory in common sense that is always more useful than any competing theory.

Answer choice (E) is the correct answer.

is this literally a common sense answer?

Unfortunately this is not common sense, but rather a very technical inference from the essayist's argument.

The essayist states that there are always obsolete theories in common sense. A theory is obsolete when there is a more useful theory out there, which could take its place. If common sense always contains some obsolete theories, that means that there exists some other theories that are more useful, but have not yet replaced them.

[oli_oops]

Hi asuper!

It looks like you have a good understanding of this argument. I would caution you against intrepreting the first statement as a conditional in exactly the way that you did.

Often times, we can read statements of the form A is B as A B. For example Dogs are Mammals can be diagrammed as D M

However the the statement Smith is the Prime Minister is better diagrammed as S PM, since Smith is the prime minister, and the prime minister is smith.

There is an ambiguity in our language about what the word "is" means sometimes, and since this essayist does not seem to be crafting a conditional argument, it may not be best to interpret the first sentence in conditional terms.


Answer choice (A) is unproven. The essayist makes no claims about the future usefulness of "new theories that have not yet been found to be more useful than any theory currently part of common sense."

Answer choice (B) is also unproven. The essayist does not compare the usefulness of theories that are both part of common sense. The essayist only focuses on the comparison between the ones that are part of common sense and the ones that are not part of common sense.

Answer choice (C) discusses the reason why new theories are not absorbed more quickly into common sense. The essayist however does not give us any reason for why this is. This answer is also unproven.

Answer choice (D) is possible but not proven. We know that some theories come into common sense and replace older theories. This answer goes too far and states that every theory in common sense will eventually be replaced by a more useful new theory. It is possible that there is one theory in common sense that is always more useful than any competing theory.

Answer choice (E) is the correct answer.

is this literally a common sense answer?

Unfortunately this is not common sense, but rather a very technical inference from the essayist's argument.

The essayist states that there are always obsolete theories in common sense. A theory is obsolete when there is a more useful theory out there, which could take its place. If common sense always contains some obsolete theories, that means that there exists some other theories that are more useful, but have not yet replaced them.

Hello,

Thanks for the explanation. This is helpful. However, while I get that E is correct, for B was it incorrect because that the "more useful" ones are the "alternative theories" that have not yet replaced the common sense theories, instead of *within* the common sense theory, there are less and more useful ones...?

I feel like this is an easy question but the wording is very tricky.

Thank you!!
oli

[James Finch]

Hi Oli,

The problem with (B) is that it assumes that older theories = more likely to be superseded, which isn't necessarily true and a linkage not made, explicitly or implicitly, in the stimulus. Some things change faster than others, and thus the commonsensical theories that exist about them will change faster as well. Older theories are more likely to deal with more basic human understandings about the natural world, for example, understandings that have likely held up better through time than, say, assumptions about urban planning.

Hope this clears things up!