- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8950
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Apr 09, 2016 1:39 pm
#22938
Complete Question Explanation
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (E)
The argument exposes a common misconception that arises when laypeople interpret scientific theory. In ordinary American English, we think of "fit" as meaning muscular, athletic, and thin. (In British English, "fit" can also have the connotation of "good-looking.") However, in evolutionary biology, "fit" simply means "well-suited to the environment and thus likely to survive." The argument points out that when we hear the phrase "survival of the fittest," we should not construe "fit" in the ordinary English sense. The argument does a good job of proving that the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a tautology: the phrase merely states an obvious point — that the most likely to survive are the most likely to survive.
However, the argument runs into trouble in its very last clause when it suggests that a tautology must necessarily be "neither informative nor of scientific interest." In other words, a tautology has the following properties: (1) It is not informative; and (2) It is not of scientific interest. Where did this logical leap come from? This is a big hole in the argument. In order to make the argument completely air-tight, we must make assumptions which fill in these holes.
Answer choice (A): In order to make the argument work, we need to show some logical connection between a tautology and (lack of) informativeness; and a logical connection between a tautology and (lack of) scientific interest. This answer choice is attempting to relate scientific interest with informativeness — this is not the logical step we need.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice essentially says "If scientific interest, then true." The contrapositive is "If false, then no scientific interest." In order to fill in gaps in the argument, we are attempting to establish "If a tautology, then no scientific interest." So this answer choice does not help us.
Answer choice (C): Try assuming the logical negation of this answer choice: What if popular slogans are often informative or of scientific interest? This would not disprove the author's argument the popular slogan "survival of the fittest" is not informative or of scientific interest. That popular slogans often have certain properties does not imply that popular slogans always have such properties in all cases. So by the Assumption Negation test, the statement in this answer choice is not necessary for the argument.
Answer choice (D): Try assuming the logical negation of this answer choice: What if informative scientific claims can use terms in the way they are popularly used? This would not disprove the author's argument that this particular scientific claim is not using the term "fittest" in its popular sense. So by the Assumption Negation test, the statement in this answer choice is not necessary for the argument.
Answer choice (E):This is the correct answer choice. Every tautology is logically "true," but it may not give us interesting new information. If we say that truth is not sufficient for a claim to be of scientific interest, we remove the possibility that every tautology is of scientific interest. This possibility would destroy the argument.
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (E)
The argument exposes a common misconception that arises when laypeople interpret scientific theory. In ordinary American English, we think of "fit" as meaning muscular, athletic, and thin. (In British English, "fit" can also have the connotation of "good-looking.") However, in evolutionary biology, "fit" simply means "well-suited to the environment and thus likely to survive." The argument points out that when we hear the phrase "survival of the fittest," we should not construe "fit" in the ordinary English sense. The argument does a good job of proving that the phrase "survival of the fittest" is a tautology: the phrase merely states an obvious point — that the most likely to survive are the most likely to survive.
However, the argument runs into trouble in its very last clause when it suggests that a tautology must necessarily be "neither informative nor of scientific interest." In other words, a tautology has the following properties: (1) It is not informative; and (2) It is not of scientific interest. Where did this logical leap come from? This is a big hole in the argument. In order to make the argument completely air-tight, we must make assumptions which fill in these holes.
Answer choice (A): In order to make the argument work, we need to show some logical connection between a tautology and (lack of) informativeness; and a logical connection between a tautology and (lack of) scientific interest. This answer choice is attempting to relate scientific interest with informativeness — this is not the logical step we need.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice essentially says "If scientific interest, then true." The contrapositive is "If false, then no scientific interest." In order to fill in gaps in the argument, we are attempting to establish "If a tautology, then no scientific interest." So this answer choice does not help us.
Answer choice (C): Try assuming the logical negation of this answer choice: What if popular slogans are often informative or of scientific interest? This would not disprove the author's argument the popular slogan "survival of the fittest" is not informative or of scientific interest. That popular slogans often have certain properties does not imply that popular slogans always have such properties in all cases. So by the Assumption Negation test, the statement in this answer choice is not necessary for the argument.
Answer choice (D): Try assuming the logical negation of this answer choice: What if informative scientific claims can use terms in the way they are popularly used? This would not disprove the author's argument that this particular scientific claim is not using the term "fittest" in its popular sense. So by the Assumption Negation test, the statement in this answer choice is not necessary for the argument.
Answer choice (E):This is the correct answer choice. Every tautology is logically "true," but it may not give us interesting new information. If we say that truth is not sufficient for a claim to be of scientific interest, we remove the possibility that every tautology is of scientific interest. This possibility would destroy the argument.
