Self-study
Conclusion People ought to take into account a discipline's blemished origins when assessing the scientific value of that discipline. █████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ███████ ████ ████████ ██ ██████████████ █████ █████ █████████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ █████████ ███ █████ ███████████ ██ ████████ ███████
Summarize Argument
The author concludes that, when assessing a discipline's scientific value, people should consider that discipline’s blemished origins. He points to chemistry as an example, noting that many important discoveries were made by alchemists, whose superstitions and belief in magic shaped early chemical theory.
Identify and Describe Flaw
The author concludes that people should consider a discipline’s blemished origins when assessing that discipline’s scientific value. But he fails to consider whether those origins are relevant to how the discipline functions today. To use his example, what if chemistry today is entirely different from chemistry as practiced by the alchemists? In that case, why should we consider the alchemists when judging chemistry’s current scientific value?
26.
The reasoning above is most ███████████ ██ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████
a
fails to establish ████ ███████████ ████ ███████████ ███████ ███ ██████████████ ████████
The author never assumes that disciplines with unblemished origins are scientifically valuable. He just argues that blemished origins should be considered when assessing a discipline’s scientific value.
b
fails to consider ███ ███████████ ███████ ████████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████████
The author fails to consider the possibility that alchemists’ practices are entirely different from current chemistry practices and so perhaps should not be considered when assessing chemistry’s scientific value.
c
uses an example ██ ██████████ ███ █████████ █████ █████████████
The author does use an example, but he uses it to support the principle under consideration, not to contradict it.
d
does not prove ████ ████ ███████████ ████ ███ ███ ██████████████ ████████ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ██ ████ ███ ███████
The author never assumes that disciplines that are not valuable have suspect origins, so he doesn’t need to prove this. He doesn’t say how a discipline’s origins affect its scientific values, only that its origins should be considered when assessing its value.
e
uses the word ████████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████
This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “equivocation.” The author doesn’t make this mistake because he uses the word “discipline” consistently throughout his argument.