Self-study
A geologist recently claimed to have discovered in clay a previously unknown form of life: "nanobes," one-tenth the size of the smallest known bacteria. ████████ ██ ██ ████████ ████ ███████ █████ ███ ██████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ █████████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ███████████ ██████████ ███████ █ ██████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████ █ ████████████ ██████████ █ ████████████ ███ █████
Summarize Argument: Phenomenon-Hypothesis
The author hypothesizes that nanobes, a supposedly living organism found in clay, are actually nonliving inanimate artifacts of this clay’s structure. This is because a nanobe is too small to have a reproductive mechanism, which is required to be classified as a living thing.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that nanobes are too small to contain any form of reproductive mechanism.
The author also assumes that the clay can produce non-living artifacts like nanodes
21.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ █████████ ███████ ███ █████████
a
No known form ██ ████████ ██ ███████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ ██ █ ██████ ████ ██ █████████████
The argument is not focused on sexual reproduction. Any type of reproduction would suffice for nanodes to be classified as living.
b
Single-celled creatures can ███████ ██ ████ █ ███████████ █████████ ███ ████ █████████ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ ████████ ██████ █████ ██████
This undermines the argument by showing that small organisms without a clear reproduction mechanism can still nonetheless reproduce. This directly weakens the link between the premise and conclusion.
c
The material phenomena ████ ████ ██████████ █████ ███ ███ ██████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████ ███ █████████████ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████████
This does not specify whether the nanodes are living or not. It leaves far too much up for assumption.
d
Previous definitions of ████ ████ █████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ████████ ███████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████
While this casts doubt on previous definitions of life, it does not seriously weaken the argument’s claim that nanodes are not living due to their inability to reproduce.
e
Animals such as ████████████ ███████ ███ ██ ███████████████ ████████ ██████ █████ ███████ ████ █████ ████████
This comparison is completely irrelevant to the argument’s reasoning. The argument is focused on whether nanodes are living due to their size limiting their capacity for a reproductive mechanism.