#22 - The true scientific significance of a group of unusual

[caseyh123]

I really do not understand the wording of A. I understand that this is a "source" error and that A is supposed to be pointing that out, but I do not see how it accomplishes that because the language is just so convoluted to me. Can you please parse this sentence for me?
"It draws conclusions about the merit of a position and about the content of that position from evidence about the position's source."

What is "the position"?

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Casey!

"Position" is essentially equivalent to "viewpoint" or "assertion." In this case, the "position" the answer choice is referring to is Walcott's classification.

"merit of the position" = "The true significance...is more likely to be reflected in a recent classification than it was in Walcott's own classification." In other words, Walcott's own classification is not likely to have as much merit as the recent classification.

"content of that position" = "His classifications are thus unlikely to have done anything but confirm what established science had already taken to be true." In other words, the content of Walcott's classification probably just confirmed what had already been established by science.

"evidence about the position's source" = "Walcott was, after all, a prominent member of the scientific establishment." In other words, the source of Walcott's classification (Walcott himself!) was part of the scientific establishment.

Basically, this argument is: Walcott was a prominent member of the scientific establishment (premise), therefore the content of his classifications probably just confirmed what the scientific establishment had already taken to be true (intermediate conclusion), therefore his classification has less merit than the more recent classification (main conclusion).

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[simonsap]

Argument rephrased: Current science better classifies the value of X because the past classifications were outdated.

Argument rephrased another way: Walcot confirmed the bias of the establishment to which he belonged and therefore his classifications are wrong compared to the modern ones.

flaw: Ad hominem - i.e. Outdated science was wrong - but no reasons provided other than that it is outdated.

[annabelle.swift]

"Position" is essentially equivalent to "viewpoint" or "assertion." In this case, the "position" the answer choice is referring to is Walcott's classification.

I initially ruled out (A) as a loser because I didn't think there was a position in the stimulus. (A) makes sense now, but how is Walcott's classification a "position"? Would it be correct to say that a scientific classification is like a theory/hypothesis, which is like a viewpoint?

Basically, a "classification" felt more objective to me than a "viewpoint" or "position."

[Adam Tyson]

A position is just another word for an opinion or viewpoint, annabelle.swift. Any time someone asserts that something is true or accurate, they are taking a position. If I classify the movie "Pulp Fiction" as a comedy, I am taking a position. If I say that pumpkin spice lattes are delicious, I am taking a position. Wherever you stand on any issue, that is your position (in fact, think of it literally that way - "where you stand" in the physical sense IS the position you are in.)

Walcott classified some unusual fossils, and in so doing, he took a position: "Here's what I think we should call these things." It's that position - Walcott's stand on the issue of how those fossils should be classified - that the author is attacking.

[jwooon]

Hi,

I am currently struggling with why (A) is correct and why (D) is wrong.

First as to why (A) is correct, I was recently doing PT4, and in PT4 S4 Q18, there is a method of reasoning question about a psychologist where the reason why the answer "source argument" was wrong was because one of the 'characters' within the stimulus attacked another position by attacking a professional aspect of what the psychologist was doing. This was considered not a source argument, because it was not "personal." The explanation there was that if the character were to have said the psychologist was bad because of something he did personally (like for example, let's say he goes around his town littering during his free time and the character said "look, he is a bad psychologist because he litters for fun during his free time") then saying that there was a source argument flaw in the question would have been valid. I thought the same would apply in this question. The author is attack Walcott saying he is a bad scientist because of something he would have done professionally (agree with what has already been said).

Second as to why (D) is incorrect, I thought that the argument in general was saying that the recent classification would be better than Walcott's because Walcott was biased. Wouldn't that mean that the argument attempts to establish the validity of a claim by saying the other argument is bad (aka. denying the truth of the opposite of that claim)?

[Dana D]

Hey Jwoon,

Your reasoning for answer (A) is correct, the author is saying Walcott's classification would be less accurate simply because of the source (Walcott).

For why answer choice (D) is wrong - it attempts to establish the validity of a claim (this would be the claim that the non-Walcott classification would be more accurate) by denying the truth of the opposite of that claim (by denying Walcott's classification?). That denial of Walcott's system doesn't really happen here, which is why answer choice (D) is not the best answer.

Hope that helps!

[jwooon]

Oh, I see. Makes sense, thanks!