Subscription pricing
This one has thrown me!
I chose A because if the British gov is not forthcoming with secure information, then it would make sense why they were brushing people's requests for info aside & not releasing enough information. Am I misunderstanding the argument here?
Struggling to understand how B strengthens the argument.
1
3 comments
Conclusion: there have been spacecraft sighed near Earth that are extraterrestrial in origin.
Why?
Premise: (Because) requests for information by civilian researchers are brushed aside.
Assumption: If the government is not forthcoming with relevant information, then it must be because it there have been spacecraft sighed near Earth that are extraterrestrial in origin.
We tackle strengthening/weakening questions by articulating the assumption and strengthen the argument by asserting that the assumption is well founded or weaken the argument by asserting that the assumption is ill founded.
@troysch1106 said:
So there are (at least) two ways of reading the flaw in this argument--
The gov could have alternate reasons for not releasing this info that have nothing to do with the validity of UFO sightings
Looking closely at the conclusion, it leaps to saying the UFOs come from extraterrestrials--as opposed to say unrecognized military planes from foreign countries.
A is an attempt to get at flaw 1, but it's just not great at latching on. It presumes the extra step that info on UFOs is 'secure information' (terminology not used in the stimulus), and even then saying they're 'generally' not forthcoming is not great for bolstering why they're not forthcoming in this particular case.
B is getting at flaw 2--we have no evidence from the argument that the UFOs are necessarily from other planets, and this fills that gap by saying the gov would only withhold the info if they were from other planets, hence strengthening the arg.
Thank you!
So there are (at least) two ways of reading the flaw in this argument--
The gov could have alternate reasons for not releasing this info that have nothing to do with the validity of UFO sightings
Looking closely at the conclusion, it leaps to saying the UFOs come from extraterrestrials--as opposed to say unrecognized military planes from foreign countries.
A is an attempt to get at flaw 1, but it's just not great at latching on. It presumes the extra step that info on UFOs is 'secure information' (terminology not used in the stimulus), and even then saying they're 'generally' not forthcoming is not great for bolstering why they're not forthcoming in this particular case.
B is getting at flaw 2--we have no evidence from the argument that the UFOs are necessarily from other planets, and this fills that gap by saying the gov would only withhold the info if they were from other planets, hence strengthening the arg.