The proper way to plan a scientific project is first to decide its goal and then to plan the best way to accomplish that goal. The United States space station project does not conform to this ideal. When the Cold War ended, the project lost its original purpose, so another purpose was quickly grafted onto the project, that of conducting limited-gravity experiments, even though such experiments can be done in an alternative way. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the space station should not be built.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) attacks the proponents of a claim rather than arguing against the claim itself
(B) presupposes what it sets out to prove
(C) faults planners for not foreseeing a certain event, when in fact that event was not foreseeable
(D) contains statements that lead to a self-contradiction
(E) concludes that a shortcoming is fatal, having produced evidence only of the existence of that shortcoming
The proper way to plan
This topic has expert replies
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 435
- Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 3:55 am
- Thanked: 17 times
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 3:01 am
IMO B since its assumes "The proper way to plan a scientific project is first to decide its goal and then to plan the best way to accomplish that goal" without providing any evidence for it
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 138
- Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:02 pm
- Thanked: 15 times
between B and D, I am more inclined towards D since the passage criticises what was earlier defined as a logical plan (i.e. one that has goals set out first).
- riteshbindal
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 393
- Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 9:18 pm
- Location: Chicago
- Thanked: 8 times
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 197
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 2:47 am
- Thanked: 12 times
b...i was going to go e...what's oa?madhur_ahuja wrote:The proper way to plan a scientific project is first to decide its goal and then to plan the best way to accomplish that goal. The United States space station project does not conform to this ideal. When the Cold War ended, the project lost its original purpose, so another purpose was quickly grafted onto the project, that of conducting limited-gravity experiments, even though such experiments can be done in an alternative way. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the space station should not be built.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
(A) attacks the proponents of a claim rather than arguing against the claim itself
(B) presupposes what it sets out to prove
(C) faults planners for not foreseeing a certain event, when in fact that event was not foreseeable
(D) contains statements that lead to a self-contradiction
(E) concludes that a shortcoming is fatal, having produced evidence only of the existence of that shortcoming
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 186
- Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:50 pm
- Thanked: 10 times
- Followed by:1 members
This is definitely B because if you look the stimulus the structure goes:madhur_ahuja wrote:The proper way to plan a scientific project is first to decide its goal and then to plan the best way to accomplish that goal. The United States space station project does not conform to this ideal. When the Cold War ended, the project lost its original purpose, so another purpose was quickly grafted onto the project, that of conducting limited-gravity experiments, even though such experiments can be done in an alternative way. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the space station should not be built.
The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
Premise 1: The proper way to plan a scientific project is to first decide its goal and then plan the best way to accomplish that goal
Premise 2:When the Cold War ended, the project lost its original purpose, so another purpose was quickly grafted onto the project, that of conducting limited-gravity experiments, even though such experiments can be done in an alternative way.
Conclusion:It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the space station should not be built.
Note that the argument does not provide any evidence that demonstrates that the alternate way is better than the space station. Therefore, the conclusion does not logically tell us any thing new hence the choice of
[spoiler](B) presupposes what it sets out to prove [/spoiler]
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 2:52 am
- Location: Sydney
- Thanked: 23 times
- Followed by:1 members
-
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 177
- Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 11:06 am
- Thanked: 2 times
- Followed by:1 members
OE is E I've get this from test magic
Please do not post answers visibly . Please hide them or post them later after the discussion.