Conclusion: "there is no scientific basis for rejecting astrology."
Why: We are told that those who are influenced by modern Western science take for granted (accept without evidence) the fact that a genuine belief in astrology is proof of a credulous and unscientific mind. But, in the past, indisputably intelligent people accepted astrology as a fact.
Red flag: just because people of indisputable intelligence accepted astrology as a fact in the past, does not mean that currently there is no scientific basis for rejecting astrology. There could have been evolutions in science that revealed the farce inherent in astrology. So, even though in the past, astrology may have been backed by the science of the time, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is still backed by scientific evidence.
As you can see, answer choice (A) clearly delineates the above issue: "A belief can be consistent with the available evidence and accepted scientific theories at one time, but not with the accepted evidence and theories of a later time."
If you have any specific questions on the other answer choices, please feel free to clarify.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
MeredithSeptember 5, 2019
What's the flaw in the other answer choices?
Bauer22February 13, 2020
Can you please explain the difference between A and E? Is it because E says "nonscientific reasons"?
melissarod20June 26, 2020
I'd also benefit from the flaws in the other answer choices. Thanks!
SkylarJune 27, 2020
@Meredith @Bauer22 @melissarod20, happy to help!
In summary, the passage proceeds as follows: P: Today, those influenced by Western science take it for granted that genuine belief in astrology is proof of a credulous and unscientific mind. P: Yet, in the past, brilliant people believed in astrology. C: Therefore, there is no scientific basis for rejecting astrology.
We are asked to identify the criticism this argument is most vulnerable to. We should immediately notice a red flag- our first premise is about the modern-day whereas our second premise, from which our conclusion about the modern-day is ultimately drawn, is about the past. We should keep an eye out for this as we go through our answer choices.
(A) is correct. It calls out the red flag we identified above- that the conclusion about the modern-day is based on something about the past. Put more specifically, we cannot say that there is no scientific basis for rejecting astrology today just because brilliant people in the past used to accept it as fact. This does not account for scientific advances that may have been made since then that disprove astrology. (B) is incorrect. The fact that an argument is controversial does not mean it must be invalid. (C) is incorrect. The last two sentences in this argument are unspecific enough to apply to all cultures. (D) is incorrect. The argument does not make an implicit assumption that practitioners of Western science believe in astrology. In fact, the first sentence of this argument suggests the opposite. (E) is incorrect. The conclusion of this argument is that there is no SCIENTIFIC basis to rejecting astrology, so nonscientific reasons are irrelevant.
Does that make sense? Hope it helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions!
