Q9 - Until recently it was widely believed

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
ID the Flaw

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: the number of species that can reproduce through parthenogenesis is increasing. Premise: as interest in parthenogenesis has increased, parthenogenesis has been discovered in a variety of unexpected cases.

Answer Anticipation:
This causal argument concludes that the increase in the discovery of parthenogenesis must be caused by an increase in the existence of parthenogenesis. But, could it be something else? An alternative cause is implied by the stimulus: increased interest is leading folks to look for parthenogenesis more often or more closely. The correct answer might call this out, either as an assumption or an objection the argument failed to consider. This stimulus also sounds like the Unproven vs. Untrue flaw. Just because we didn't see parthenogenesis in these species before doesn't mean it wasn't actually there. That means we have two strong prephrases moving into our answer choices.

Correct answer:
C

Answer choice analysis:
(A) No. Interest in a subject is relevant, sure, but the argument doesn't treat interest as though it implies understanding. What the argument does is overlooks interest as a possible alternative for the increasing number of parthenogenesis discoveries.

(B) This answer describes a causal flaw, mistaking order for causality, so this one is tempting. So, what happens in order in our stimulus? Increased interest comes before the discoveries. But does our argument conclude that increased interested caused the discoveries? No, quite the opposite: it overlooks that possibility!

(C) Here it is: Unproven vs. Untrue. Just because we didn't realize sharks and Komodo dragons could reproduce through parthenogenesis doesn't mean they weren't doing it all along. If you find the abstract language in this one confusing, try to replace it with less abstract language from the stimulus. "Takes ignorance of the occurrence of something (species reproducing with parthenogenesis all along) as conclusive evidence that it did not occur."

(D) This sounds like a Comparative Flaw. Do we have one here? Nope.

(E) Is our argument concerned with ranking research? No. This one is out of scope.

Takeaway/Pattern:
We call this question type ID the Flaw, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there's only one flaw per stimulus. Sometimes you'll spot multiple flaws, or you'll spot a flaw that doesn't end up being an answer choice. If all you spotted was the alternate cause flaw, C probably wouldn't jump out at you as the right answer. That's why it's important to work wrong to right, even when you have a solid prephrase.

#officialexplanation

[CharlesT757]

Can you go a little bit more into detail with answer choice (D)? I see it is a comparative flaw but there is two situations that are presented as being similar (increase in interest--->increase in parthenogenesis) but they are indeed different. Just because we have an increase in interest doesn't mean there is an increase in the phenomenon presented.

[Misti Duvall]

Sure! I like to analyze Flaw answer choice by first asking, does the argument do this? For answer (D), I don't see two situations. It's just talking about parthenogenesis and giving some examples of new information. And if the argument isn't doing what the answer says, we can eliminate.

[MarianaG293]

Hi there! I am still having a hard time deciphering the abstract language of answer choice C. I narrowed it down to B and C but ultimately chose B because (as correctly pointed out by the original explanation) I anticipated it being a causal flaw.

Could you dumb down C for me a little more? To me it reads "it overlooks the fact that this thing happening is evidence that it did not occur." But how does that make any sense? How is something occurring evidence that it did not occur? Wouldn't it be the opposite?

Thanks in advance

[Misti Duvall]

Hi there! I am still having a hard time deciphering the abstract language of answer choice C. I narrowed it down to B and C but ultimately chose B because (as correctly pointed out by the original explanation) I anticipated it being a causal flaw.

Could you dumb down C for me a little more? To me it reads "it overlooks the fact that this thing happening is evidence that it did not occur." But how does that make any sense? How is something occurring evidence that it did not occur? Wouldn't it be the opposite?

Thanks in advance

Sure! I'd probably summarize (C) as "if I don't know about something, it didn't happen." For example, I'm not following baseball season, so I'm ignorant about the occurrence of the game yesterday. So the game didn't occur.

Hope this helps.