PrepTest 105, Section 4, Question 13
Television allows us to transmit images of ourselves(57 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the argument(5 more words not shown)
- Afails to provide(7 more words not shown)
- Binfers that there(16 more words not shown)
- Cassigns too little(14 more words not shown)
- Dneglects to mention(12 more words not shown)
- Eoverlooks the immense(7 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Maybe the aliens just didn't answer.
If I send someone an email and hear nothing back, that doesn't establish that the person doesn't exist. It doesn't even establish that they failed to read it. They might have read it and chosen not to respond. The same possibility remains here: intelligent beings could have received the transmissions without sending a reply.
They might also lack the technology to receive or answer them. Intelligence doesn't automatically mean having television receivers and equipment for communicating across space. A society could use tools and communicate among its members without being able to communicate with us.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question should point to that jump from no response to no intelligent life. We've been told that our signals reached the neighboring systems, not that any intelligent beings there would necessarily send us a message we would receive.
Working the answers
- A
Giving “messages” a more detailed definition wouldn't fix the argument. Even if everyone agreed on exactly what would count as a message, intelligent beings could still fail to send one. The problem is what the author concludes from receiving none.
- BCorrect
This describes our objection in broader terms. The author has no confirming message from nearby intelligent life and treats that lack of confirmation as proof that no such life exists.
I was looking for wording about the absence of a response. B calls it a lack of proof, which still fits: the missing reply leaves us without that evidence of intelligent life. It doesn't rule out the possibilities we raised. To establish the conclusion this way, the author would need a reason to expect a detectable reply whenever nearby intelligent life exists.
- C
The conclusion is limited to neighboring star systems. Intelligent life farther away could exist without affecting that claim. Pointing to distant systems doesn't explain why the author is wrong to rule out intelligence in the nearby ones.
- D
Sending additional messages doesn't establish that an intelligent recipient must reply. These spacecraft might give extraterrestrials another possible way to learn about us, but we still need a reason to move from silence to nonexistence. Merely omitting those other attempts isn't the flaw.
- E
Even a high probability that most systems are uninhabited would leave open the possibility of intelligent life in a neighboring system. The author is claiming there is none nearby. Failing to emphasize that many systems might be empty doesn't expose the unsupported step from no messages to that sweeping conclusion.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.