Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardFlaw in the Reasoning

Philosopher of Science: To objectively evaluate a scientific theory, a researcher must be able to isolate the theory's predictions from their own pre-existing biases. When a scientific discipline is dominated by a single paradigm, researchers are unconsciously influenced by the paradigm's core assumptions, making it impossible for them to isolate their evaluations from bias. Therefore, to ensure that objective evaluation of theories is possible, a discipline must actively dismantle any dominant paradigm. Clearly, once a dominant paradigm is removed from a discipline, its researchers will be capable of objectively evaluating theories.

The reasoning in the philosopher's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on which of the following grounds?

  1. A
    takes for granted that if researchers are capable of objectively evaluating theories, their discipline must not be dominated by a single paradigm
  2. B
    rejects the possibility that researchers can be unconsciously influenced by a paradigm's core assumptions without those assumptions biasing their evaluations
  3. treats the elimination of a condition that makes a desired outcome impossible as sufficient to guarantee that the outcome is possibleAnswer
  4. D
    draws a sweeping conclusion about the objective evaluation of scientific theories based on evidence that applies only to disciplines dominated by a single paradigm
  5. E
    confuses a condition that is sufficient to ensure a particular outcome with a condition that is necessary to ensure that outcome

Answer

The argument treats the elimination of a condition that makes a desired outcome impossible as sufficient to guarantee that the outcome is possible.
The argument establishes that a dominant paradigm makes objective evaluation impossible, meaning the absence of a dominant paradigm is necessary for objective evaluation to be possible. However, the conclusion asserts that simply removing the dominant paradigm guarantees researchers will be capable of objective evaluation. This incorrectly treats a necessary condition (removing the paradigm) as a sufficient condition, overlooking other potential barriers. The correct option accurately describes this by stating the argument treats the elimination of a condition that makes an outcome impossible as sufficient to guarantee that it is possible.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Map the logical structure of the given premises.
Objective evaluation requires isolating biases. A dominant paradigm makes isolating biases impossible. Therefore, a dominant paradigm makes objective evaluation impossible.
Understanding the precise conditional relationships is necessary to identify logical gaps.
2
Identify the necessary and sufficient conditions established by the premises.
Because a dominant paradigm guarantees the impossibility of objective evaluation, the absence (or removal) of a dominant paradigm is a necessary condition for objective evaluation to be possible.
This establishes what must be true according to the author's own evidence.
3
Analyze the scope and modality of the conclusion.
The argument concludes that once a dominant paradigm is removed, researchers will definitely be capable of objectively evaluating theories.
Comparing the conclusion to the premises reveals the flaw.
4
Identify the logical flaw.
The author assumes that because removing the paradigm is necessary to make objective evaluation possible, it is sufficient to guarantee that it is possible. The author overlooks other potential barriers to objective evaluation (e.g., funding biases, personal ambitions).
This is a classic necessary vs. sufficient logical fallacy.
5
Match the flaw to the abstract description in the correct option.
The correct option correctly identifies that the argument treats the elimination of a condition that ensures impossibility as sufficient to guarantee possibility.
Flaw questions often use abstract terminology to describe concrete logical errors.

Key Concept

Identifying Conditional Logic Flaws (Necessary vs. Sufficient)
Estimated Time:2m 30s
Rate this question

Topics

Flaw in the Reasoning

More questions from this topic