Final answer:
Britney's argument is a slippery slope fallacy, suggesting an extreme outcome from the premise that we need more scientists, which is not a logically supported conclusion.
Step-by-step explanation:
Britney's argument is an example of a slippery slope fallacy, which occurs when a conclusion is based on the premise that if one thing happens, then a series of other, increasingly extreme events will follow. In this case, Britney suggests that the pursuit of science to the exclusion of the arts would lead to a society devoid of creativity, likening it to a world of robots. This is an unacceptable argument because it presents an exaggerated and unlikely outcome, lacking a logical progression from the premise that more scientists are needed to the conclusion that we would become like robots without artists.
Britney's argument is not acceptable because it is based on a false dichotomy. It assumes that if everyone were scientists, there would be no artists. However, being a scientist does not mean one cannot be an artist as well. In fact, many scientists have artistic hobbies or pursuits outside of their scientific work. Additionally, creativity and artistic expression are not limited to the field of art, but can also be present in the scientific process itself. For example, scientists often need to think creatively to come up with innovative solutions or to design experiments. Therefore, it is important to recognize that science and art are not mutually exclusive, and that both can coexist and contribute to society.