#1815

[practicemakesperfect]

I just don't get this one. Both answer choices seem equally plausible to me. Help!

[noah]

I just don't get this one. Both answer choices seem equally plausible to me. Help!

Can you please post the question text? The numbering system is unstable, so I want to make sure I'm explaining the right one!

Thanks.

[practicemakesperfect]

Sorry; I thought I had the first sentence in the title. It's the argument which says some philosophers claim what we perceive as solid is just a bunch of particles in constant motion, but that's nonsense because today this person bumped his head against something solid. (Atm, I can't find the post-it I wrote the exact argument down on.)

[noah]

Sorry; I thought I had the first sentence in the title. It's the argument which says some philosophers claim what we perceive as solid is just a bunch of particles in constant motion, but that's nonsense because today this person bumped his head against something solid. (Atm, I can't find the post-it I wrote the exact argument down on.)

There are actually 3 questions based on that text. I'm going to guess you're asking about the one which asks what is the conclusion.

The conclusion is that the theory is nonsense (or, as the answer says, is demonstrably false). The wrong answer, "Atomic particles do not, in fact, vibrate, going in and out of existence." looks great, except the theory is not about whether the particles are coming in and out of existence, but whether what we perceive as solid is really just those particles. In other words, the conclusion doesn't involve whether or not particles do jump in and out of existence, it's about whether physically solid things are made up of those particles.

Tell me if you're asking about one of the other two versions, or if that doesn't clear it up.

[ptraye]

Philosophers say that there exists so much space between the tiny atomic structures of which physical reality is composed that matter is not actually solid, but that what we perceive as solid is really a vibrating mass of particles that are constantly arising and annihilating, coming in and out of existence. This is nonsense _ I hit my head on a beam today and it was definitely solid.

Which of the following best represents the main conclusion of the argument?

A) The claim that what we perceive as solid is not actually solid is demonstrably false.

B) Atomic particles do not, in fact, vibrate, going in and out of existence.

------------------

why is B wrong? thanks.

[tommywallach]

Hey Ptraye,

Because the author never says that. He says stuff is solid (he hit his head), not that the particles aren't vibrating.

-t