Self-study
Support To predict that a device will be invented, one must develop a conception of the device that includes some details at least about how it will function and the consequences of its use. ███ ████████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ███████████████████ ███ █████████ █████ ██████████ █ ████████ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ██████
Summarize Argument
Predicting an invention is self-contradictory. Why? Because predicting an invention entails developing a detailed conception of how that invention will function. But if you manage to do that, congrats, you just invented the thing. So that’s not prediction. That’s just invention. Hence, predicting an invention is impossible.
Describe Method of Reasoning
Author argues that something (predicting an invention) is impossible because a necessary condition of that something (developing a detailed conception of how that invention will function) rules that something out by definition (you can’t predict an invention that already exists).
23.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ █████████ ███ █████████ ██ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ █████████
a
constructing a counterexample ██ █ ███████ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████
Descriptively inaccurate. Author does not construct a counterexample. There is no general hypothesis about the future to disprove.
b
appealing to definitions ██ █████ ███ █████████████ ██ █ ████ ██ ██████████
Descriptively accurate. The author implicitly appeals to the definition of “predict” (stating that something will happen) and explicitly appeals to the definition of “invent” (developing a detailed conception) to infer that a kind of occurrence (predicting an invention) is impossible.
c
countering a hypothesis ██ ██████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██ ████ ██████████
Descriptively inaccurate. We’ll grant that the “hypothesis” is that “it’s possible to predict an invention.” But the author does not demonstrate that the implications of that hypothesis are false. Rather, the author demonstrates that the hypothesis is self-contradictory.
d
pointing out how █ ███████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ ██████████ ███ ██ ██████ ██████████
Descriptively inaccurate. Argument does not contain any problem that is “widely thought to be scientific” nor does the author point out any problem as being actually “conceptual.”
e
attempting to show ████ ██████████ ███ █████ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ██ ████ ███████ █████ █████
Descriptively inaccurate. Author does not attempt to show that predicting any event implies that it has in fact already taken place. That would mean prediction in general would be impossible. Author only attempts to show that predicting a specific type of event (inventions) would be impossible.