Self-paced
Observatory director: Some say that funding the megatelescope will benefit only the astronomers who will work with it. ████ █████████ █████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ███████ ██ █████████ █████ ████ ███████ █████ ████████ ███ ████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ █████████████ ████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ ████████ ████ ████ █████████
Argument Breakdown: Analogy
We're asked to identify a flaw in an argument which concludes that the megatelescope should be developed. The observatory director's claims function as support for that conclusion, by rebutting the opponents who say the megatelescope will only benefit a few astronomers. To establish that the megatelescope will have widespread benefit, the director relies on an analogy, comparing the megatelescope to the beneficial works of great scientists.
The problem is, we don't know how suitable the analogy is. Is the megatelescope truly relevantly similar to the work of Maxwell, Newton, or Einstein? The director gives no support for the comparison, which creates a weakness in the argument.
5.
If the statements above are ███ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ████ █████████
a
It appeals to ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ███ ███ ██████ ████████ ██ ████████████ ██ ███ ██████████████
The argument doesn't appeal to experts regarding the construction of the megatelescope. Although the director cites certain great scientists, it's not to rely on their authority as experts. Those names are used for an analogy to show that the megatelescope may benefit the public.
b
It does not ████████ █████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███ ██████████████
Although (B) is accurate, it's nonetheless not a flaw. It doesn't really matter who the opponents are, as long as the director can make a full reply to their opinions. "Some people" is enough of an identification for our purposes.
c
It launches a ████████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ ███ █████████████ ██ ████████ ████ ██ ██████ █ █████████ █████ ██ █████
While the argument does say that the opposing point of view is dangerous, there's no personal attack on the megatelescope's opponents. Instead, the "danger" of this perspective is backed up with an analogy that aims to show the concrete dangers of suppressing research.
d
It does not ███████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ████████████ ██████ ██ ██████████████
(D) is accurate, but it's not a flaw. The argument discusses the possible benefit of the megatelescope in general, so it's not necessary to distinguish between different types of benefit. Perhaps astronomers will benefit intellectually, but the public may benefit economically—that's still a benefit.
e
It does not ████ ████ ███ ████████ █████████████ ████████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████ ████ ██ ███████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████████ ███ █████████████
The key support that the argument relies on is an analogy between the megatelescope and the work of great scientists. But there's no support given for that analogy—we don't know if the megatelescope is actually, legitimately comparable with the great scientists' work. If the analogy isn't useful, the argument has no basis, so failing to support the analogy is a flaw.