coderversion1 wrote:Kim: Over the last 50 years, there have been numerous sightings of a mysterious creature in a large, deep freshwater loch in Scotland. The creature has been given the name ""The Loch Ness Monster."" All those who have spotted this strange creature have estimated its size to be far greater than that of any known animal that inhabits the loch, and no human trickery has been discovered as of yet. Thus, this new creature, the Loch Ness Monster, must be real.
Tammy: Maybe the creature is a type of animal that would typically live in the lake but is larger than any prior known specimens of that animal. After all, it is hard to know how large the biggest whale on the planet is because we do not see every single whale. Or perhaps the sightings were a result of large shadows cast by the asymmetric reeds around the lake, which move around violently on windy days. In any case, I doubt that a new creature called the Loch Ness Monster exists in that lake.
Tammy responds to Kim's conclusion by
A. Offering alternative explanations consistent with the evidence that Kim cites.
B. Attacking Kim's conclusion as inconsistent with the available evidence.
C. Weighing Kim's conclusion against expert opinion.
D. Assuming that Kim has been unduly influenced by media reports.
E. Negating the validity of a premise on which Kim relies in drawing her conclusion.
Analyze Kim's and Tammy's arguments.
Kim offers the following evidence:
The creature is larger than anything else known to live in the lake.
There's no evidence of trickery.
On this flimsy basis (it's larger), Kim reaches the conclusion that it's a new creature unknown to man.
Tammy's argument accepts the same evidence (it's larger, no human trickery), but offers different explanations as to how these evidence could exist without leading to the conclusion that a new creature is in town:
it's a regular creature, just a very big .
OR
its not a creature at all - just shadows
seen as a very large creature.
So Tammy does not contradict the evidence - she's not arguing with the facts (eliminate E). What Tammy does is take the existing evidence and show how they could be explained in a different way that reaches a different conclusions. I don't know what Kaplan had in mind for this problem, but the answer should be A.
