Q12 - Pundits: Some scientists claim that the public

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The public isn't afraid of scientists.
Evidence: I've been a scientist for decades and never met anyone who is afraid of scientists.

Answer Anticipation:
This feels less like it's testing MISSING LINKS and more like it's testing POSSIBLE OBJECTIONS. One possible objection is just, "Your sample size might not be big enough or representative" The author is assuming "If the people I've met haven't been afraid of scientists, then the public isnt afraid of scientists". Maybe this scientist has met very few people (small sample size) or has met people within the scientific community, who aren't afraid of scientists because they mainly are scientists or work with scientists (unrepresentative sample).

We might object, "Hey, scientist. Suppose there ARE people who are afraid of scientists. Wouldn't they avoid showing you that they're afraid or avoiding you altogether?

To rule out this objection, we can say the argument assumes that "people afraid of scientists would be willing to admit or display that fear in front of a scientist" or that "scientists would be able to tell if someone around them was afraid of scientists".

Correct Answer:
D

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) I've never seen "and" in an assumption answer before! Two assumptions? I don't think we can accuse this author of implying that "alleged scientific claims can manipulate people", so I would stop reading there.

(B) We were never talking about whether people "REALLY understood science". We're only looking at whether or not they're afraid of scientists. Any answers speculating why they might be scared are out of scope.

(C) Again, this is speculating about why people might be scared. That's out of scope. The author is simply assuming his sample is trustworthy.

(D) YES. It's a contrapositive of the argument core. "If a scientist hasn't encountered at least one person afraid of scientists in decades of being a scientist, then the public is not afraid of scientists.

(E) EXTREME: every single person who has ever claimed to be afraid of scientists was telling the truth? Why would the author need to assume that extreme universal? This answer choice I suspect was meant to tempt people who were looking for the more legitimate "If someone claims to NOT be afraid of scientists, then they are NOT actually afraid of scientists".

Takeaway/Pattern: When we see conditional answers on Necessary Assumption, I do NOT recommend negating them (people usually mess up the negation ... Negating "If X, then Y" gives you "it's possible that something is X, but not Y"). Instead, with conditional answers, just compare them to the argument core. Many wrong answers like this will be illegal reversals or negations of the argument core. Correct answers like this one will often be contrapositives of the argument core.

#officialexplanation