#12 - Scientist: Some pundits claim that the public is

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below!

[theamazingrace]

Hi, I am stuck between the correct answer choice and answer choice E. I thought answer choice E was correct because it makes sense in my head to say: if someone claims to NOT be afraid of scientists, then they are NOT actually afraid of scientists.

Thanks!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Chizobao!

This an Assumption question, which means we are looking for an answer choice that is necessary for the argument. Our first step is to clearly understand the argument by identifying the conclusion and the premises.

Conclusion: The claim from some pundits that the public is afraid of scientists is untrue.
Premise: I have been a scientist for several decades and I have never met anyone who was afraid of scientists.

In the answer choices, we're looking for something that is necessary for the claim that the public is afraid of scientists to be untrue based on the fact that this single scientist has never met anyone who is afraid of scientists.

Answer choice (D) is a Supporter Assumption linking the premise to the conclusion. It states that if the public was afraid of scientists, then a scientist would encounter at least one person who was afraid of scientists. Via the contrapositive, since our scientist has not encountered anyone who was afraid of scientists, then the public is not afraid of scientists.

Answer choice (E) states that "Anyone who claims to be afraid of scientists is actually afraid of scientists." But our argument is not about people claiming to be afraid of scientists. The pundits are claiming that others are afraid of scientists. No one in the argument is claiming that they themselves are afraid of scientists. The scientist says she has never met anyone who is afraid of scientists, not that she has never met anyone who claims to be afraid of scientists. So this answer choice is irrelevant to the argument.

When using the Assumption Negation technique on conditional answer choices, the correct way to negate is to say that you can have the sufficient condition without the necessary condition. So for (D), the negation would be: "The public could be afraid of scientists even though a scientist may never have met someone who was afraid of scientists." If this were true, it would destroy the argument because it's taking away the scientist's entire method of reasoning. For (E), the negation would be: "Someone could claim to be afraid of scientists without actually being afraid of scientists." This would have no impact on the argument because, again, the argument is not about individuals claiming that they themselves are afraid of scientists.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey