LR Question 26 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: People ought to take into account a discipline’s…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: People should take into account the blemished origins of a discipline when they assess the scientific value of that discipline.
REASONING: The author gives chemistry as an example. Once upon a time important chemical results were obtained by alchemists who believed in magic.
ANALYSIS: The author hasn’t shown why we should care about origins. If modern day chemists no longer believe in magic then I don’t know why I should care about alchemists.
___________
- The author seems to be concluding that disciplines with blemished origins aren’t very valuable.
- CORRECT. If chemists no longer believe in magic then maybe the origins of chemistry don’t matter.
- The example doesn’t contradict the idea that we should look at the origins of disciplines.
- The argument didn’t claim that most scientifically worthless disciplines have blemished origins. It just said that origins should be considered.
- Discipline always has the same meaning: field of study.
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
Hello, I’m not sure I understand how the statement, “If chemists no longer believe in magic, then perhaps the origins of chemistry do not matter,” explains what B stated. Could you please elaborate on what you mean?
Hi!
The argument is saying that the origins of chemistry stems from alchemists, who believed in magic. They’re using this example to say that we should consider the origins of scientific disciplines when we assess the value of the discipline. Basically, it’s saying the origins of chemistry findings came from people who believed in magic, so let’s think about that when we evaluate chemistry.
But does that mean that chemists today believe in magic? Not necessarily. Just because the alchemists believed in magic, doesn’t mean that chemistry hasn’t evolved since then and has nothing to do with magic now.
That’s what B is pointing out. It says that the argument fails to consider whether chemistry today believes in different theories and practices than alchemists before did. So that’s what Graeme is referring to in his explanation of B. If chemists today don’t believe in magic anymore, then it doesn’t matter whether the alchemists used to, when you’re assessing the value of chemistry today.
Another way to understand it is by analogy. Imagine someone says: “We should think about the origins of medicine when we assess its value. Many medicine discoveries stemmed from the belief that diseases were caused by evil spirits.”
Modern medicine obviously doesn’t believe that anymore. So when we’re assessing the value of medicine today, why does the evil spirits belief matter?
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have further questions.