Student: The publications of Professor Vallejo on the origins of glassblowing have reopened the debate among historians over whether glassblowing originated in Egypt or elsewhere. ██ █████████ ███████ ██ ████████ █████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ████████████ █████ ██ ██████ ███ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ███████████ ████ ██ █████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ███████████ ██ █████████ ███████ ██ ████████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ████████████ ██████████ ██████████
The author concludes that if Professor V is correct, glassblowing originated outside of Egypt. This is based on a premise that establishes if Professor V is correct, there’s not enough evidence for the claim that glassblowing began in Egypt.
The author assumes that lack of sufficient evidence for a claim’s truth implies that the claim is false. This overlooks the possibility that a claim can still be true (glassblowing originated in Egypt) even if we don’t have enough evidence to prove that it’s true.
Which one of the following ██ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██████████
It draws a ██████████ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ████████
There is nothing flawed about disagreeing with experts. What matters is whether you have enough evidence to support your conclusion. Whether that conclusion goes against experts’ views has no bearing on the quality of the argument.
It presupposes the █████ ██ █████████ █████████ ███████
By using “if Professor V is correct,” the conclusion is conditioned on the hypothetical situation in which Professor V is correct. This does not assume that the professor is in fact correct. So the author doesn’t assume that Professor V’s claims are true.
It fails to ███████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ████████ ██████████ █████████
The premise asserts that if Professor V is correct, there’s not enough evidence to say that glassblowing began in Egypt. We accept this premise as true. It doesn’t matter whether we know the criteria for adequate evidence.
It mistakes the ████████ ████ ███ ███ ███████████ █████
The author labels the view of “most historians” as the “traditional view.” We have no reason to think this labeling is wrong. In any case, whether a view is traditional has no impact on the argument. The author never rejected a view because it was traditional or not traditional.
It confuses inadequate ████████ ███ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ████████
The author confuses inadequate evidence for the truth of a claim (that glassblowing began in Egypt) as evidence that the claim is false. This is a flaw because a claim can still be true, even if there’s not enough evidence to prove that it’s true.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic