PrepTest 152

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument/Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed/Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
P: Prying into health histories is justified only if done for the advancement of science, so scientists looking into the health of historical figures must ask if they're motivated by science or curiosity.

V: But curiosity has motivated some great scientific discoveries, so curiosity and science are the same.

Answer Anticipation:
Does Varela agree with Pulford's conclusion? Nope. Premises? Nope. This is an example where we really have to dig in because there's a complete disagreement here.

Varela's rebutting conclusion is that curiosity is the root of science. Why does she feel the need to connect those two? Looking at Pulford's argument, it's because he states that scientists need to distinguish between studies motivated by science and those motivated by "mere curiosity." In stating that they're the same, Varela is showing that she believes a key distinction for Pulford's argument doesn't actually exist. The correct answer should point that out.

Answer Explanation:
Pulford's argument rests on a distinction between legitimate scientific inquiry and mere curiosity. Varela contends that that distinction is untenable—it doesn't stand up to scrutiny because curiosity is the root of scientific inquiry. This answer reflects her response and so it's correct.

Key Takeaway:
There's a difference between treating two things as the same when they're not, and being inconsistent/contradictory. Contradiction requires two statements that cannot both be true at the same time.

Incorrect. The principle Pulford states is that last sentence about whether an investigation is justified. Varela doesn't dispute that principle; rather, she disputes what counts as legitimate scientific inquiry.

Incorrect. A general statement about "[m]any great scientific discoveries" doesn't count as offering a counterexample (not just because it's plural).

Incorrect. Varela is erasing a distinction, not drawing one. Pulford also doesn't conflate two views. If anything, this answer reverses the relationship between the arguments.

Incorrect. This is definitely tempting. However, there's a difference between premises being inconsistent—contradicting each other—and premises that draw a distinction that doesn't exist—pointing out an irrelevant distinction. Pulford's argument, according to Varela, does the latter.