A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the

This topic has expert replies
Moderator
Posts: 7187
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:43 pm
Followed by:23 members
A recent analysis of a new chemical element found on the Moon showed that the new element could be used to substitute for several rare and extremely expensive metals used in space electronics. However, research conducted by an independent laboratory showed that some errors were made during analysis of the new element, and therefore, metals currently used in space electronics cannot be replaced with this element.

The argument above is flawed because it

(A)presumes, without providing justification, that if something is not proved to be true, then it must be wrong.

(B)fails to prove that independent research laboratories are more capable in chemical analysis than the laboratories that tested the new element.

(C)fails to consider the possibility of further accurate chemical analyses of the new element.

(D)fails to consider that laboratory tests conducted by only two institutions may not be sufficient to reach a definite conclusion.

(E)presumes, without providing justification, that results of research in which several errors were made can be considered to be trustworthy.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Legendary Member
Posts: 2214
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:22 pm
Followed by:5 members

edited:

by deloitte247 » Sun Jun 17, 2018 4:48 am
Here, we have a bit technical reasoning to do in order to arrive at a just conclusion.

In Option A - INCORRECT, we have a case of improper research which led to presumption. For the fact that something has not been proved to be true does not take away the fact that it could be true if and when subjected to Tests and experimental analysis. So, it's not a flaw of argument.

In Option B - INCORRECT .
This seem to be because the experiments were conducted at least in a laboratory, though still subject to other verification. It is not a point of weakness here.

In Option C - INCORRECT.
This statement of mine seek to suggest that there should be a way of seeking assertions and affirmative conclusion from other persons who equally have carried out such analysis.

In Option D - CORRECT.
This is true because the two analyses showed different results therefore, several others may need to come forward with their evaluation of the element before a justified conclusion can be reached.

In Option E - INCORRECT.
Here, one of the researching institutions can not overwhelmingly decide what happens in this case. They too might be wrong in their assessment.