Q12 - All known living things

[sbrandt85]

I do not understand why the correct answer is not C. I diagrammed the statements:

KLT -> CB & GC

HL -> CB & GC

KLT = know living things, CB = carbon based, GC = genetic code, HL = human life

If it is a living thing, it will have a genetic code. If there isn't a genetic code, then it is not a living thing.

[noah]

Your answer might qualify as an inference, but not as an assumption. We need to identify a sufficient assumption that will make the argument work. I think a diagram is overkill and confusing for this question. Stick to the core:

Conclusion: Human life has the same origin as all other life forms.
Premise: All known life made of same basic matter.

What's the gap?

Try this analogous argument: Kids are all liars. So, kids all have the same personalities.

It's easy to see I shifted from being liars to personalities. In the question's stimulus, what shift is made? From same basic matter to same origin. Couldn't something have the same basic matter but have a different origin?

(E) fills that gap.

(A) is out of scope - coming into existence?
(B) is only focuses on the matter, where's the discussion of origin?
(C) is probably true (though we only know about "known living things" in the stimulus), but how does it bridge the premise to the conclusion?
(D) is irrelevant - the argument is about what exists now.

[shodges]

Your answer might qualify as an inference, but not as an assumption. We need to identify a sufficient assumption that will make the argument work. I think a diagram is overkill and confusing for this question. Stick to the core:

Conclusion: Human life has the same origin as all other life forms.
Premise: All known life made of same basic matter.

What's the gap?

Try this analogous argument: Kids are all liars. So, kids all have the same personalities.

It's easy to see I shifted from being liars to personalities. In the question's stimulus, what shift is made? From same basic matter to same origin. Couldn't something have the same basic matter but have a different origin?

(E) fills that gap.

(A) is out of scope - coming into existence?
(B) is only focuses on the matter, where's the discussion of origin?
(C) is probably true (though we only know about "known living things" in the stimulus), but how does it bridge the premise to the conclusion?
(D) is irrelevant - the argument is about what exists now.

I understand why (E) is the best answer (I originally thought that since it only contained one of the 3 things living things had, it was wrong. I got rid of it too quickly without piecing together that of course human life is a known human thing), why is (A) out of scope? Don't you have to assume that human life would not have come into existence if it weren't for other life forms? Or maybe it's that the origin doesn't necessarily have to be other life forms?

[noah]

why is (A) out of scope? Don't you have to assume that human life would not have come into existence if it weren't for other life forms? Or maybe it's that the origin doesn't necessarily have to be other life forms?

Good question. I (perhaps annoyingly) want to pose the question back to you -- do we need to assume that humans coming into existence required other things to come into existence? Would it be a problem for this argument if it turns out that the appearance of human life was independent of the appearance of other life forms?