Q26 - Astronomer: I have asserted that our solar

[debbie.d.park]

I chose B, and I can't figure out why D is the correct answer. Can you please explain? Thanks in advance.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good news! You chose the correct answer. Answer choice (B) is correct, double check your answer key.

[Timothy.Revero]

I quickly eliminated all but B & C.

Chose C, but in the end cannot distinguish B from C (B being the correct one)

is it because B more directly addresses the core?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hey Timothy, actually the issue with answer choice (C) is that it's not even true! The astronomer does not fail to exclude alternative explanations for the cratering. The researcher is actually on the hunt for alternative explanations and only seeks to rule out the opponents explanation (cratering).

Hope that helps!

[lucamaz3]

What is the difference between answers (B) and (C)?

The flaw in the argument is that just because the opponents are wrong doesn't mean that the astronomer is right.

Isn't he ignoring the fact that both could be wrong? Because that is what I read answer (C) as saying"”he's not considering that there could be alternatives to the two ideas.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Hi lucamaz3, good question. Your reading of answer choice (C) is what they want you to hear, but that's not what it's saying. Answer choice (C) suggests that the astronomer overlooked possible alternative explanations for the cratering. But this would only be relevant if the astronomer had actually offered an explanation for the cratering.

Lets take a look a this from another perspective.

Suppose there's a crack in a famous monument somewhere. If someone were to suggest that the crack was caused by a recent earthquake, that person would have failed to consider possible alternative explanations. However, if someone were to say that the recent earthquake did NOT cause the crack, that person would be failing to consider alternative explanations. No, that person would actually be considering alternative explanations (implicitly).

The same is true with this question. The astronomer didn't fail to consider alternative explanations for the cratering on the far side of the moon, since the astronomer suggested something else (i.e., not meteoroids) must be responsible for it.

Hope that helps!

[liq419]

STIM:

I believe:
(Conclusion) my thesis is correct
(Premise) because my opponents failed to disprove it

Author's thesis: "our solar system doesn't contain enough meteoroids+ debris to have caused Moon's cratering".
Translation: " something else caused the catering. Our solar system didn't cause the catering"

---------
FLAW:
Absence of evidence fallacy.
Just because you haven't disproven/falsified something YET, doesn't make it true.
--------

CHOICES:
(A) Wrong. "Criticize" =Ad Hominem. Author didn't say " they are so stupid" for failing to falsify my thesis, so it's not a personal attack.

(B) Correct. ="saying something is true just because no one proved it to be false"

(C) Wrong. Author did not ignore alt explanations. See "Thesis translation" above. He implicitly suggests/implies that something else must be causing the Catering since we (our solar system) didn't cause it.

(D) Wrong. Unlike Trump, author didn't say "don't investigate me/my thesis". The fact that the opponent has TRIED to demonstrate the falsity of the thesis means that rational criticism occurred.

(E) Wrong. No obligation to define a word. IRRELEVANT to reasoning.