PrepTest 124, Section 1, Question 25
Occultist: The issue of whether astrology is a(52 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the occultist's(12 more words not shown)
- Apresumes, without providing(8 more words not shown)
- Bincorrectly infers that(16 more words not shown)
- Cdenies the possibility(10 more words not shown)
- Dincorrectly infers that(18 more words not shown)
- Epresumes, without providing(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Doing complicated math doesn't automatically make the whole activity a science.
Imagine calculating the proportion of wizards in the world of Harry Potter. We could do the arithmetic carefully and consistently. That wouldn't turn the fictional story into a scientific account of the world. Using a scientific tool and establishing the status of the whole practice are different things.
That's the concern with the occultist's argument. Let's grant that the mathematics and astronomical knowledge used in an astrological chart are scientific components. Why does that make astrology itself a science? Those components could be used in a practice whose larger claims haven't been established by them.
What we’re looking for
The description of combining symbols may help explain what the speaker regards as artistic. It doesn't repair the jump about science. For the flaw question, I'd look for that specific move: treating some scientific ingredients as enough to classify the entire activity. We can challenge that inference without supplying our own definition of science or relying on an outside opinion about astrology.
Working the answers
- A
This gets the direction wrong. The speaker uses complicated mathematics as a reason to call astrology scientific. A instead says every science must contain complicated mathematics. Those claims are different. Someone could believe that math makes astrology a science while also accepting sciences that don't use complicated math.
- BCorrect
The practice has some scientific components, so the speaker calls the practice a science. But a property of some components doesn't automatically describe the whole activity. Correct astronomical information or careful calculations could appear in a fictional story too. We would still need to examine what the larger activity does with those components.
- C
The speaker identifies artistic and scientific components without saying that those are the only kinds of components astrology has. There could be other features. Merely leaving those unmentioned isn't denying that they exist, so C attributes a claim the argument never makes.
- D
The speaker treats the astronomical knowledge as scientific in the supporting evidence. The conclusion is about astrology as a whole. D reverses what is being supported: the argument doesn't infer that astronomy is scientific because astrology uses it. The problem is what the speaker infers from using that knowledge.
- E
Like A, this turns a proposed basis for classification into a universal requirement. The speaker presents synthesizing factors and symbols as an artistic component of astrology. That doesn't assert that every art must involve that synthesis. E also leaves our central objection about classifying the whole practice unanswered.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.