Multiple choice

Professor Branch, who is chairman of the sociology department, claims she saw a flying saucer the other night. But since she is a sociologist instead of a physicist, she cannot possibly be acquainted with the most recent writings of our finest scientists that tend to discount such sightings, so we can conclude her report is unreliable. Which of the following would be the most appropriate criticism of the author's analysis?

  1. He makes an irrelevant attack on Professor Branch's credentials.

  2. He himself may not be a physicist, and therefore may not be familiar with the writings he cites.

  3. Even the U.S. Air Force cannot explain all of the sightings of UFOs which are reported to them each year.

  4. A sociologist is sufficiently well educated that he can probably read and understand scientific literature in a field other than his own.

  5. It is impossible to get complete agreement on matters such as the possibility of life on other planets.
Reveal answer Fill a bubble to check yourself
A Correct answer
Explanation

(1) In this story, the identity of the person who reports the incident is irrelevant. As long as it is not someone with a special infirmity (very poor eyesight, for example) or poor credibility (an inveterate liar), the person is quite capable of reporting what he saw-or what he thought he saw. The most serious weakness of the analysis presented is that it attacks Professor Branch's credentials. To be sure, one might want to question the accuracy of the report: At what time did it occur? What were the lighting conditions? Had the observer been drinking or smoking? But these can be asked independently of attacking the qualifications of the source.Option (4) is incorrect since it is not the question of understanding scientific text but of challnging somebody's credibility based on extraneous issues. Wheter or not she is qualified in a particular discipline, she is well educated and holding a responsible position. 

Keep practicing — related questions