A study of rabbits in the 1940s convinced many biologists that parthenogenesis—reproduction without fertilization of ...

Ravi on January 14, 2020

@shafieiava,

Let's look at (D) and (E).

(D) says, "confuses a necessary condition for parthenogenesis with a
sufficient condition for it"

(D) is describing a converse fallacy (confusing a necessary condition
for a sufficient condition), but this type of fallacy is not present
in the argument.

(E) says, "assumes that the methods used in a study of one mammalian
species were flawed merely because the study's findings cannot be
generalized to all other mammalian species"

Although the author tells us that the study in the stimulus is flawed,
they never give us a reason for why it's flawed. And, because the
flawed nature of the study in question is provided to us as a premise,
we must accept it and not wonder how it came to be. This is why (E) is
out. If the argument had instead concluded that the study was flawed,
then (E) might have been able to work, but as it stands, this is not
what the argument concluded.

Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any other questions!

shafieiava on January 15, 2020

Thank you for your help. Would you mind giving an example of what a converse fallacy (confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient condition) might have looked like in this case?

Ravi on January 15, 2020

@shafieiava,

If there were any necessary condition of parthenogenesis in this
argument, it'd be the reproduction without fertilizing an egg.

Parthenogenesis - >reproduction w/o fertilizing an egg

If the author were committing a converse fallacy (confusing a
necessary condition for a sufficient condition), she would have been
arguing that since this organism reproduced without fertilizing an
egg, this organism performed parthenogenesis.

reproduction w/o fertilizing an egg - >parthenogenesis

This is what would have had to happen in the argument in order for (D)
to have been correct.

Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any other questions!