Question

The structure of the reasoning in the argument above is most parallel to that in which one of the following?

a) An argument stating that a proposed economic policy cannot succeed because economic systems are too complex to predict accurately.

b) An argument claiming that scientific theories are unreliable because scientists often disagree on their interpretations.

c) An argument asserting that educational assessments are invalid due to the variability in grading criteria.

d) An argument concluding that the analysis of literary works is futile because readers' interpretations are subjective.

Answer 1

The reasoning structure is most parallel to option (b), an argument claiming that scientific theories are unreliable due to disagreements among scientists. Both arguments exhibit a lack of clear inference connecting premises and conclusions, which is essential in deductive reasoning and logical analysis in philosophy.

Step-by-step explanation:

The structure of the reasoning in the argument is most parallel to that in option (b) An argument claiming that scientific theories are unreliable because scientists often disagree on their interpretations. This argument, like the one provided, asserts a failure in a system based on a potential complexity or subjectivity, without adequately explaining how the complexity or subjectivity leads to the failure. Both lack a clear inference that logically connects their premises to their conclusion, which is crucial for deductive argumentation.

Logical Analysis and Arguments:

In philosophy, logical analysis is vital as it deals with subjects where truth is often debatable. Philosophical reasoning is focused on constructing arguments where the structure and the inferential connection between premises and conclusion can be evaluated independently of the truth of the premises. A formal fallacy could occur if there's a disconnect between the premises and the conclusion, even if both are true.