Can someone explain how A is the correct answer? I got this question correct by POE, but during BR, I just can't figure out how A is explicitly correct.
Stats guy: Changes in the sun’s brightness correlate with land temperatures on Earth. Clearly, and contrary to what meteorologists think, the sun’s brightness is the main cause of land temperature.
Meteorologist: You are wrong, dude! Any professional meteorologist will tell you that climate is really complicated. There is no significant part that is controlled by one thing.
What I am looking for: The stats guy makes the typical causation/correlation flaw. Plus, even if the sun were to be a causal factor, the stats guy hasn’t given any evidence that the sun is the MAIN cause. The meteorologist is making an appeal to professionals, but it is actually pretty weird that he is doing this. The stats guy says that meteorologists can’t be trusted, so the meteorologist citing other meteorologists won’t do anything to convince the stat guy. I was expecting that the correct answer was going to talk about this idea (an irrelevant appeal to authority).
Answer A: This is it simply by POE. That’s really all I got because I don’t see the “specific case” nor the “invoking of a relevant generalization” in the meteorologist’s retort.
Answer B: What single counterexample? What generalization is false?
Answer C: I think this must be false. The meteorologist seems to be arguing the opposite of this idea: there is no single cause because climate is very complicated.
Answer
Experimentally tested? He doesn’t bring this idea up.
Answer E: What unfavorable evidence? Systematically neglected? This just isn’t done.
Comments