Q9 - Astronomer: Proponents of the hypothesis that life evol

[T.J.]

I am so not getting this question. I think that the flaw is that in spite of the empirical argument against the astronomer's claim, he still thinks his belief is true. How is A the right answer?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Great question, T.J.! This one is a bit hard to parse, and it's crazy long.

In real life it might be valid sometimes to say that someone's flaw is essentially 'failing to bow to clearly superior evidence' - but the problem with that type of assessment in LSAT-land is that you're getting into the business of weighing/valuing different evidence, and what you need to be doing is assessing the logic in light of (or despite) evidence.

But also note that the astronomer never argues that life did evolve on earth - rather, he concludes that the alien spore theory, specifically, is wrong.

To massively simplify the argument, we can read the first nine lines as just "stuff the other guys believe and why". The core is what comes after:

PREMISE
No one has provided positive support for the extraterrestrial spore theory, only evidence against the theory that life evolved on earth.
CONCLUSION
Good reason to regard the extraterrestrial spore theory as false.

What is the gap between these ideas? When there's no evidence in favor of a theory, that could cast doubt on it, but that lack of evidence cannot prove it false. (Also sometimes known as "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".) Just because you have no evidence that I went dancing last night doesn't mean that it is reasonable for you to definitively conclude that I did not!

(A) captures this idea by noting that the astronomer is assuming that the absence of positive support for the spore theory is as good as evidence directly against the spore theory.


Not the Problem
(B) The astronomer never claims the view is "inherently implausible."
(C) The astronomer never suggests that another theory is equally likely to be true.
(D) The premises don't fully support the conclusion, but they do not contradict it.
(E) This isn't a flaw. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the truth of your opponent's premises that don't advance your own argument.


Does that help clear this one up a bit?

[einuoa]

Just a bit more clarification on this question. Since the astronomer is assuming that lack of evidence = hypothesis false, is the 'therefore he's concluding that there is evidence against that hypothesis,' more of an implicit assumption to reach the conclusion that the hypothesis is false?

When doing this question, I had a difficult time with finding where the argument actually concluded that there is evidence against that hypothesis because it never directly stated that there must be evidence against the hypothesis, therefore it's false. If it's more of an implicit assumption, we can say that that is part of the flaw?

In addition, are there any examples of questions similar to this that I can practice with/look at for reference? Thanks.

[christine.defenbaugh]

Just a bit more clarification on this question. Since the astronomer is assuming that lack of evidence = hypothesis false, is the 'therefore he's concluding that there is evidence against that hypothesis,' more of an implicit assumption to reach the conclusion that the hypothesis is false?

When doing this question, I had a difficult time with finding where the argument actually concluded that there is evidence against that hypothesis because it never directly stated that there must be evidence against the hypothesis, therefore it's false. If it's more of an implicit assumption, we can say that that is part of the flaw?

In addition, are there any examples of questions similar to this that I can practice with/look at for reference? Thanks.

Interesting question, einuoa!

So, first of all, let's clear some things up about the relationship between Flaws and Assumptions. Why would an argument be flawed? On a fundamental level, an argument is flawed because it assumes things. Now, sometimes we see Flaw answers written in odd/confusing syntax, but at their heart they are assumptions.

That being said, this argument actually does conclude "that there is evidence against that hypothesis." We can see this from the beginning wording of the conclusion: "There is good reason to regard their hypothesis as false". Saying that there is a good reason to believe something is functionally equivalent to saying that there is some evidence, or support for believing that thing.

Once we realize that the argument does conclude that there is evidence against the hypothesis, we can break down answer choice (A): [no evidence in favor] was the premise of the argument, and [evidence against] is the conclusion.

So really, all this answer choice is saying is that the argument is flawed because it 'concludes, simply because [premise], that [conclusion].' It's not a very creative description of the assumption, or flaw, but it is an accurate rendering of the leap being made!

For practice, just look to any Flaw questions - and keep in mind that the flaw will always relate to an assumption, or gap, in the argument!

Does this help clear this up a bit?

[einuoa]

Yes, thank you!

[danwilyms]

So I am still unsatisfied with the explanations thus far.

The astronomer never concludes there is no evidence in favor of the hypothesis, as (A) asserts; he merely says the evidence has not been positively provided.

This is a massive gap, and one the test writers frequently use to make questions more difficult. How do we choose between two flawed answers? I agree that (B) introduces something new ("inherently implausible"), but (A) violates one of the LSAT'S core tenets: a mere lack of evidence offered does not imply a lack of evidence.

[ohthatpatrick]

I'm not sure if I understand your gripe.

You're saying there's a distinction between saying
"No one has ever presented any evidence in favor of X"
and
"in all of existence, there is no evidence in favor of X"?

I think those two claims ARE different, but I would disagree that choice (A) is using the 2nd meaning, and I would disagree that LSAT famously tests that distinction.

There is a famous flaw, the one we're looking at in this problem, that we call Unproven vs. Untrue. It goes like
"No one has ever presented any evidence in favor of X"
thus
"X is wrong/false."

In choice (A), when we say "there is no evidence in favor", we're referring to the proponents of the extraterrestrial life hypothesis. They have no evidence. In this conversation / in this argument, there are no facts that support the ET Life hypothesis.

I see where you could agonize over whether to interpret "there is no evidence" as
"we're not aware of any evidence"
vs.
"no evidence exists in the universe"

But I think the former meaning is a more conservative reading.

If you were at a trial and said,
"There is no evidence that the defendant was even at the scene of a crime"

it would be understood as
"the plaintiff has not produced any evidence",
not as
"I, the defense lawyer, am staking claim to the idea that no evidence exists in the universe that the defendant was at the scene of the crime."

Does that make sense?

[danwilyms]

Yes, you nailed my precise gripe. Your explanation is clear, yet I wish there were a way to tell whether a universal statement is meant to be globally or locally applied. It comes down to choosing between

"There is no evidence (at all in the universe)" vs.
"There is no evidence (currently presented)"

with the parts in parentheses left, unstated, in the minds of the test writers.

[laurenvarg]

Breaking this down for my own brain, maybe it will help someone else also!

Support proponents that life drifted here on spores extraterrestrially (wtf ok cool) offer:
3.8 mil years ago earth was hit by meteorites that killed everything
But 3.5 mil years ago we had life forms complex enough for fossils.
So! Spores that floated here.

Author opinion:
The evidence only knocks down it happening on earth, it doesn't support the spore theory → sport theory hypothesis is probz false.


Flaw type: Unproven vs. untrue. I mean, I get it they don't make the best argument (maybe life spontaneously occurred, maybe little human babies spawned from the meteors I don't know!) but just because they didn't prove their theory true doesn't mean it's probably wrong. NAH!

A. concludes that because there’s no evidence in favor of a hypothesis (the spore theory) that there is evidence against it (yup that’s what he’s sayin’) this is correct
B. fails to justify its claim that the view being criticized is inherently implausible. Well, he never claims it is implausible just that there isn’t evidence supporting it.
C. Reasons that a hypothesis is false simply because there is another hypothesis that is equally likely to be true. While the astronomer mentions the view that life evolved on earth, this isn’t positioned as equally likely to be true (there’s evidence against it), also the astronomer just said that the hypothesis is likely false not that another one is true.
D. The premises don’t contradict the conclusion.
E. Ain't nothin wrong with acknowledging the truth of an opponents claims! You just gotta prove your conclusion is more logically connected from those claims! This isn't a flaw.

[andrewgong01]

What I dislike about "A" is that it says "that there is evidence against the hypothesis".

The stimulus never said there is evidence against the view. The author only said that the view in question is wrong , "false" ; not there is evidence for the view the author disputes.

I think in other Unprove/Untrue answer choices it tends to be worded a bit differently like:
' a lack of evidence in favor of a view is taken to confirm the falsity of the view"; not ' a lack of evidence in favor of a view is taken as there is evidence against the view'.

[WesleyC316]

What I dislike about "A" is that it says "that there is evidence against the hypothesis".

The stimulus never said there is evidence against the view. The author only said that the view in question is wrong , "false" ; not there is evidence for the view the author disputes.

I think in other Unprove/Untrue answer choices it tends to be worded a bit differently like:
' a lack of evidence in favor of a view is taken to confirm the falsity of the view"; not ' a lack of evidence in favor of a view is taken as there is evidence against the view'.

I agree. If it'd been worded that way, I wouldn't have missed the question. I guess we just have to keep the assumption in mind that for LSAC, "good reason" means "evidence".

[JackC868]

First and foremost, the astronomer says "good reason to regard their hypothesis is false." he does not say "good EVIDENCE to regard their hypothesis is false." You can't introduce evidence unless you equivocate reasoning with evidence, which is absurd

The Astronomer interprets the proponent's failure, not as evidence against his hypothesis, but as reasoning against his hypothesis (reasoning that doesn't suggest falsehood at that), and if this is what A would have said, I would have selected it.

Unfortunately, A does not say this. Here is another problem - A says and I am quoting, "concludes, simply because there is no evidence in favor of a hypothesis, THAT THERE IS evidence against that hypothesis."

If your explanation were correct (believe me, I wish it were), then A would have said "concludes, simply because there is no evidence in favor of a hypothesis, THAT THIS IS evidence against that hypothesis." If this were said, then A is O.K. But even then, he explicitly says in the stimulus that there is GOOD REASON to regard the hypothesis as false. Thus, A really should read "concludes, simply because there is no evidence in favor of a hypothesis, he reasons the hypothesis is false."

Overall, two problems with the question: (1) THERE IS vs. THIS IS and (2) GOOD REASON =/= EVIDENCE

I'm not too concerned with (1), because there is an avenue where There Is and This Is are the same. For example, If I were to say "There is evidence, and This is it!" So I can see why one would reject my assertion about (1). I maintain that saying "There is" is a very awkward way to write, and a lazy way to challenge students - but lazy is subjective so I'll stick with number (2) as my repudiation of the question.

Man, when I write the LSAT, I sure hope its written well, otherwise LSAC Pennsylvania will be getting several calls from a disgruntled test-taker.

B is tempting, but false and implausible have two different definitions. Implausible this means dubious or doubtful about something (or not probable). This is weaker than "false". Also, "inherently implausible" is word salad - no thanks.

I selected A, but I was laughing as I selected it. You have to know when the test-makers are in over their heads, and that just takes a lot of practice and dissecting every question to the utters.

[AnnaT620]

Thanks very much for the above. Please can you clarify why C is incorrect?

I picked C because A seemed incorrect due to the "no evidence" comment, as there is empirical evidence provided to support that hypothesis? Feel like I'm definitely a bit confused here!

Thanks so much!