PT111.S3.Q26 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14

PASSAGE 3

Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20

PASSAGE 4

Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that, when assessing a discipline's scientific value, people should consider that discipline’s blemished origins. He points to chemistry as an example, noting that many important discoveries were made by alchemists, whose superstitions and belief in magic shaped early chemical theory.

The author concludes that people should consider a discipline’s blemished origins when assessing that discipline’s scientific value. But he fails to consider whether those origins are relevant to how the discipline functions today. To use his example, what if chemistry today is entirely different from chemistry as practiced by the alchemists? In that case, why should we consider the alchemists when judging chemistry’s current scientific value?

The author never assumes that disciplines with unblemished origins are scientifically valuable. He just argues that blemished origins should be considered when assessing a discipline’s scientific value.

The author fails to consider the possibility that alchemists’ practices are entirely different from current chemistry practices and so perhaps should not be considered when assessing chemistry’s scientific value.

The author does use an example, but he uses it to support the principle under consideration, not to contradict it.

The author never assumes that disciplines that are not valuable have suspect origins, so he doesn’t need to prove this. He doesn’t say how a discipline’s origins affect its scientific values, only that its origins should be considered when assessing its value.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “equivocation.” The author doesn’t make this mistake because he uses the word “discipline” consistently throughout his argument.

PrepTest 111 - Section 3 - Question 26

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action