Pulford: Scientists who study the remains of ancient historical figures to learn about their health history need to f...

Emil-Kunkin on January 27, 2022

Hi @tayloryork,

For this question type we are being asked explicitly how Varela responds to Pulford's argument. We are going to have to be very careful,about the word choice in our answers to make sure that our understanding of the answer actually matches what does or does not happen in the passage.

Let's take a look at B. Does V dispute the validity of a principle that P explicitly states? To answer this, let's break down what this would look like. To dispute the validity of something would be to directly attack it, or to simply claim that it is not true. The principle that P states looks to be the final sentence of their argument: that investigation into a private matter like health is justified only when it is in the advancement of science.

Based on V's response, it does not seem that V disagrees with this principle. V makes a point about what is legitimate inquiry, which actually suggests that V may accept this general principle. If V were to dispute the validity, they would have to directly attack the principle, perhaps by stating that there are indeed reasons other than legitimate scientific inquiry for the investigation.

Let's turn to E. For this to be correct, V would have to point out that P's premises contradict each other. This is not what V says. V suggests that mere curiosity is indeed legitimate scientific inquiry. This does not show that P's premises contradict each other, only that those premises are flawed or incomplete in a way. More specifically that that draw a distinction between two things that are not distinct.