#4 - Anne: Halley's Comet, now in a part of its orbit

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning—CE. The correct answer choice is (D)

The arguments of Anne and Sue can be analyzed as follows:

• Anne’s Argument
  
  Premise: Halley’s Comet, now in a part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared brightly enough to be seen by telescope.
  
  Premise: No comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the Sun before.
  
  Conclusion: Such a flare must be highly unusual.
  
  Sue’s Argument
  
  Premise: Usually no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun.
  
  Premise: This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Halley’s Comet very carefully.
  
  Conclusion: [Your conclusion is] Nonsense.

As is often the case with two-speaker stimuli, the speakers disagree. In this case, Anne uses causal reasoning to indicate that the cause of the sighting is unusual activity with Halley’s comet:

• FU = the flare is highly unusual
  NCO = no comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the sun
  
  Cause Effect
  
  FU NCO

Sue counters by citing an alternate cause: no one has been looking for such a flare.

• NO = no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun
  NCO = no comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the sun
  
  Cause Effect
  
  NO NCO

The problem now becomes an exercise in figuring out how the test makers will describe the alternative cause cited by Sue.

Answer choice (A): This answer quickly fails the Fact Test. Sue does not comment on the use of the term “observed” (other than to explain why the flare was observed).

Answer choice (B): Although Sue cites an explanation that is inconsistent with Anne’s claim, she does not point out an inconsistency between two of Anne’s claims

Answer choice (C): Remember, evidence is the same as premises. Does Sue contradict Anne’s premises? No, she only contradicts her conclusion. Do not be drawn in by the word “nonsense.” That word is used to attack the conclusion, not the premises of the argument.

Answer choice (D): This is the correct answer choice. In this answer, the alternate cause is described as an “alternative explanation.” In most cases, a causal counterargument can be described as offering an alternative explanation.

Answer choice (E): This is a Reverse Answer. The answer appears as follows:

• “undermining some of Anne’s evidence while agreeing with her conclusion”

If the answer choice was reversed in the following manner, it would be correct:

• “undermining her [Anne’s] conclusion while agreeing with some of Anne’s evidence”

The evidence she agrees with is the first sentence of Anne’s argument (the premise in the second sentence is not directly addressed).

[egarcia193]

Hi,

I didn't see the causality in this, I had it narrowed down between answer choice C and D and chose C. I can understand why D is right when it is explained but I did not notice any causality when I read the argument and when I chose C I thought it was referring to Sue contradicting Anne's conclusion not premises or evidence which I see now why it is wrong. But would it be possible to show where and how the causality functions I don't really understand the diagrams set up very well?

[Francis O'Rourke]

Let's start with Sue's response. Did you notice and understand the the use of the phrase "only because" in the final sentence of the stimulus?

As for the causality expressed earlier in the stimulus, it is not entirely necessary to diagram the statements shown in the administrator's post above. Diagramming causality is a helpful tool, but don't get hung up on it if it is giving you trouble. As long as you see that Anne is presenting evidence that she believes leads to her conclusion, and Sue offers an alternative way to understand the the events, you should be able to select answer choice (D).

[zoezoe6021]

I still don't understand why (B) is incorrect if Ann's conclusion can be counted as one of her claims.

Sue points out that no one has observed such a phenomenon (Anne's premise) does not mean it is unusual (Ann's conclusion)

Could you please explain? Thank you.

[Luke Haqq]

Hi zoezoe6021!

You comment,

Sue points out that no one has observed such a phenomenon (Anne's premise) does not mean it is unusual (Ann's conclusion)

What you note isn't really Sue pointing out inconsistency but rather her arguing that the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow. Anne sees some evidence and reasons to a particular conclusion from it. Sue responds by suggesting an alternative explanation.

Perhaps think of inconsistency as synonymous with incompatibility or incongruence--claims that can't fit together. For example, if Anne said "No comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the Sun before" and also said "Many comets have been observed to flare so far from the Sun before," those would be inconsistent statements.