#5 - Montgomery, a biologist who is also well read in

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (A)

The conclusion here is that Montgomery's views do not deserve a negative appraisal because they are no more extreme than the views of some professional archeologists. Once you read the question and realize that this is a flaw in the reasoning question, you should be able to prephrase some type of answer referencing the fact that the stimulus gives us no information to support the assumption being made that the views of all professional archeologists should not be subject to negative appraisals.

Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. The stimulus tells us that there are professional archeologists who hold views that are at least as extreme as Montgomery's views. The author fails to establish, however, that the views of those archeologists should be beyond reproach.

Answer Choice (B) This stimulus has nothing to do with how archeologists feel about biologists in general. The connection between the two scientific fields is based upon how the archeologists feel about Montgomery's views specifically, and whether opinions by those in each field may or may not be held up to negative appraisal.

Answer Choice (C) Whether all professional archeologists are familiar with Montgomery's views is irrelevant to the stimulus argument. The fact has already been established that many professional archeologists have criticized Montgomery's views.

Answer Choice (D) This stimulus has nothing to do with whether the majority of professional archeologists do or do not support Montgomery's views. The stimulus author is making a point connected only to the professional archeologists who are criticizing Montgomery, not the field as a whole.

Answer Choice (E) This answer choice is an example of an ad hominem, or source argument. At no point in the stimulus are the motives of those criticizing Montgomery questioned, so this answer is incorrect.

[desmail]

Hi,

Im having alot of trouble understanding why the answer is A. Why do we need to give a reason as to why the professional archaeologists dont deserve negative criticism? It seems out of scope since the stimulus seems to be about Montgomery. I didn't really see a flaw in this argument.

Thank you in advance!
Dana

[Steve Stein]

On that one, Montgomery's views have been criticized for being too extreme. How does the author defend Montgomery's views? By saying that there are "some" (that is, one or more) professional archeologists with equally extreme views.

The fact that there is at least one professional archeologist whose views are as extreme is not much of a defense; who knows what one (or maybe a few) might claim. That is what correct answer choice A provides: The author defends by pointing to "some" extreme archeologists, despite the fact that those archeologists might be equally worthy of criticism.

Let me know if that clears that one up--thanks!

[desmail]

I understand your reasoning, but I'm having trouble translating that into answer choice A, if that makes sense. I think I'm not understanding what answer choice A is actually saying.

This is what I think answer choice A says: Montgomery fails to defend these professional archaeologists that think as extreme as he does. He says that he doesn't deserve negative appraisal, but doesnt say that the archaeologists dont deserve negative appraisal either?

So confused!

[Steve Stein]

It's something like this:

"People criticize Mike for being crazy, but they're wrong: Archie and Andy have the same views!"

The problem with this defense: Archie and Andy might be just as crazy as Mike, just like those professional archeologists might be just as extreme as Montgomery.


Let me know if this clears things up at all--thanks!

[desmail]

So basically, if Montgomery said something like "the archaeologists that think like me do not deserve negative appraisal because they are not extreme" would that make the conclusion more logical?

With Montgomery leaving us wondering what the archaeologists views are could make us think hes still extreme, right?

[Steve Stein]

Hey Dana,

Thanks for your response.The problem here is that the author relies on the corroboration of an unknown number (some) of unverified sources (professional archeologists). There might be any number professional archeologists with extreme views, so relying on the similiar perspectives of one or more unknown professional archeologists to argue against Montgomery's extremism is a questionable approach.

Please let me know whether this makes the question any clearer--thanks!

~Steve

[Mustafaabdulmalek]

even if the author did fail to establish ....etc. in answer A the argument about Montgomery not about other archaeologists
so why is it a flaw ?
thnaks

[Steve Stein]

Hey Mutafa,

That's a good question. The author's argument is basically that Montgomery shouldn't be criticized for being too extreme, because those views are not more extreme than some professional archaeologists.

First, consider the fact that "some" is a very vague term—it could be that there are one or two extremists that the author is referring to; regardless, so there are others with similarly extreme views—that doesn't mean that those views are not overly extreme.

In short, an overly extreme view that has a few supporters can still be an overly extreme view, and one worthy of criticism.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear.

Thanks!

~Steve

[jbrown1104]

Hey PS!

So essentially, the flaw in the argument is that just because others with extreme views not receiving negative appraisal doesn't mean that Montgomery shouldn't. I had the prephrase for this as: an error of division because just because others don't receive has no bearing on the individual. I think my prephrase helped to an extent, but I am struggling to see how the wording of (A) leads to the flaw noted above in my prephrase and the rest of the discussion on the question. Please explain answer choice (A)'s wording!

Thanks,
~JB