Self-study
Support Scientists are sometimes said to assume that something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case. ███ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████ ███████ █ █████ ████ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ █████ ██ ██ ████ ███ █████ ███ ██ ██ █████ ██ ███ ████████████████ ██████ ██████████ █████ ██████ ███ ████████ ███ ██ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ██████ █████ ███ ████ █████ ████ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ██████ ██████████ ███ ██ █████████ █████ ██████ ███████ █████████████ ████ █ █████ █████████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ██ ████ ████████████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███████ ██████
Structure: Counter-Argument
The author rejects someone else's argument that scientists "assume something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case." She does so by means of an example: determining whether a food additive is safe or not. Since the possibilities are either that the food additive is safe or that it is not safe, on the one hand, if the description above is true, scientists would have to assume that the additive was not safe, because it hasn't been proven to be safe. But they would also have to assume that it was safe (i.e. not not safe), because it hasn't been proven to be unsafe. The author points out that these are contradictory assumptions, and she therefore concludes that the original description of scientists is false.
Analysis: Method of Reasoning
The author rejects the description of scientists by providing a hypothetical example where that description would lead to a contradiction. Specifically, the description says that for any given phenomenon, A, scientists assume A is not the case until there is proof that A is the case. The author suggests a scenario (determining whether a food additive is safe) where there isn't proof for either A (the food additive is safe) or not-A (the food additive is not safe). She points out that by the original description, scientists in this case would have to assume both A and not-A, which wouldn't make sense.
We could go in depth to see whether the author's argument is actually valid, but since this is just a Method of Reasoning question, we can just go to the answer choices at this point.
7.
Which one of the following █████████ ███ █████████ ██ █████████ ████ ██████
a
A general statement ██ ██████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ███ ████████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ████████
Incorrect. The author never claims that the original statement has been "deliberately formulated" to be misleading.
b
A statement is ██████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ████ █████ ██ ███████████ █████████████
Correct. The author provides an example to show that, if this statement is taken to be true, it would lead to "implausible consequences" — specifically, to a contradiction.
c
A statement is █████ ██ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ███████████ █ ██████ █████████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ██ █████
Incorrect. It's important to be clear what statements we're talking about. The author does mention two contradictory ideas: the idea that the food additive is safe, and the idea that the food additive is not safe. But neither of these ideas is the statement the author is trying to prove false, and we aren't assuming that either of those two ideas is true — they're provided as part of a hypothetical example. The statement the author is trying to prove false is the claim that scientists "assume that something is not the case until there is proof that it is the case." The author argues that this claim is false because it leads to contradictory situations, not because it itself contradicts some other statement.
d
A general statement ██ █████ ██ ██ █████████████ ██ ███████ ████ █████ ███ ██ ████ ████████ █████████ ██ █████ ██ ██ █████ ██ █████ ███ █████████ ██ █████ ██ ██ █████
Incorrect. The author doesn't make any comparisons between the number of "specific instances" where a statement is false or true. Nor is the author's point that the original description of scientists is "uninformative" — she's arguing that it's not true.
e
A statement is █████ ██ ██ █████████████ ██ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ █████████████ ████████ ███████████
Incorrect. The author doesn't talk about "independently testable inferences" or claim that the original description of scientists doesn't support any such inferences.