Some historians ... - please help!!!

IMO A? whats the OA?

IMO D

OA ?

IMO B

What's the OA?
Isn't it B?

I am between A and E but can't decide

would go for A

historians: early builder of the ring were knowledgeable about celestial events

dobson: out of many stones, at any point, any pair would determine the suns position-totally a chancy thing
=>doesnt prove that the builders were knowledgeable, but doesnt mean that the builders were not knowledgeable either.

I was tempted by C and E. Chose C

ranell wrote:Dobson: Some historians claim that the people who built a ring of stones thousands of years ago in Britain were knowledgeable about celestial events. The ground for this claim is that two of the stones determine a line pointing directly to the position of the sun at sunrise at the spring equinox. There are many stones in the ring, however, so the chance that one pair will point in a celestially significant direction is large. Therefore, the people who built the ring were not knowledgeable about celestial events.

Which one of the following is an error of reasoning in Dobson's argument?

Situation: Dobson points out that as per some historian out of large number of stones since some of them are pointing to a certain celestial event people who planted such stones were aware of these celestial activity. But since so many stones are there probably the stones are out of chance rather than by real awareness.

What will weaken the Dobson's argument: Saying that since out of large number of stones probably the stones are pointing to celestial activity out of chance and so people were not knowledgeable about the same leaves a large hole. Well it just a possibility and so one can not conclude based on such chance. So anything that provides some alternate knowledge that reinforce people were aware or circular reasoning sort of thing in Dobnos statement will weaken it.

(A) The failure of cited evidence to establish a statement is taken as evidence that that statement is false.
What is failure of cited evidence here? Historian just say that since some stones points to some celestial formation they were aware. There is no evidence given, so no question arises about what is failure of cited evidence. Rub this off.
(B) Dobson's conclusion logically contradicts some of the evidence presented in support of it.
The Dobson conclusion that the people were not aware doesn't contradict any evidence given in support of it.
(C) Statements that absolutely establish Dobson's conclusion are treated as if they merely give some support to that conclusion.
There is nothing to establish Dobsons conclusion. Leave apart absolutely establishing it. Nope.
(D) Something that is merely a matter of opinion is treated as if it were subject to verification as a matter of fact.
No one is talking here about verification. Does it? No.
(E) Dobson's drawing the conclusion relies on interpreting a key term in two different ways.
It seems little close, probably stones are by chance but probably the stones are kept not because of chance. So the term "chance" here is interpreted in two different ways. And thats the flaw. Aha. Go for it choose E you will not repent. Please confirm OA

Could you please share the source of this question? It seems really tough to comprehend.

-Thanks.

B IMO. OA plz.

IMO its A.

The failure of cited evidence to establish a statement is taken as evidence that that statement is false. - (i.e 'Evidence' of a pair of stones pointing to ... is not able to establish a statement as the people who built those stuff are aware of celestial events(because it can be a mere chance) -this is used to establish a statement that those people doesn't know about celestial events)

I feel its pretty clear.

Please post the OA

Thanks,
V

OA is A

Could someone explain Choice "A"? Pleaseeeeeeeeee

Dobson: Some historians claim that the people who built a ring of stones thousands of years ago in Britain were knowledgeable about celestial events. The ground for this claim is that two of the stones determine a line pointing directly to the position of the sun at sunrise at the spring equinox. There are many stones in the ring, however, so the chance that one pair will point in a celestially significant direction is large. Therefore, the people who built the ring were not knowledgeable about celestial events.

IMO the flaw is: Lack of evidence is taken to prove a situation. However, lack of evidence may weaken/strenghten the situation, but may not be considered prove situation.

With that background, lets ponder the stimulus.

Just because one of the stones point in a celestially significant direction is large cannot be taken to prove something about the knowledge of people.

HTH