We're looking for an answer that, if true, would weaken Clay's argument.
Clay says that there's no life on other planets, because we haven't detected any planets, and planets are required for there to be life. In other words his argument is:
extraterrestrial life -> planets
astronomers haven't detected planets
THEREREFORE,
extraterrestrial life
The part where his argument goes wrong is that, from "astronomers haven't detected planets" he is implicitly concluding "planets". But astronomers not detecting planets is different from planets not existing.
So C gets at this. If C is true, that means we don't currently have enough technology to detect planets outside our solar system, meaning that there could well be planets that we just haven't detected. So that assumed link falls flat. Given C, "astronomers haven't detected planets" definitely should not lead Clay to conclude that those planets don't exist--they might exist, since if they do, we just don't have the instruments necessary to observe them.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Hold on there, you need to slow down.
We love that you want post in our discussion forum! Just come back in a bit to post again!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
2 comments
Why is A wrong?
We're looking for an answer that, if true, would weaken Clay's argument.
Clay says that there's no life on other planets, because we haven't detected any planets, and planets are required for there to be life. In other words his argument is:
extraterrestrial life -> planets
astronomers haven't detected planets
THEREREFORE,
extraterrestrial life
The part where his argument goes wrong is that, from "astronomers haven't detected planets" he is implicitly concluding "planets". But astronomers not detecting planets is different from planets not existing.
So C gets at this. If C is true, that means we don't currently have enough technology to detect planets outside our solar system, meaning that there could well be planets that we just haven't detected. So that assumed link falls flat. Given C, "astronomers haven't detected planets" definitely should not lead Clay to conclude that those planets don't exist--they might exist, since if they do, we just don't have the instruments necessary to observe them.