The antecedent claim here (aka a claim that has been previously made) would be the idea that we should decide to define "intelligent life" in some more precise way.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
BatmanDecember 1, 2013
Thanks, bunch!!
sairaj87September 17, 2014
No idea how to answer this!
NazSeptember 23, 2014
The conclusion of the argument is: "we cannot just decide to define 'intelligent life' in some more precise way."
Why? We know that the question whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is certainly imprecise since we do not know how different from us something might be and still count as "intelligent life." However, we know that it is probable that we will find and recognize intelligent life elsewhere in the universe only if we leave our definitions open to new, unimagined possibilities.
The question stem asks us to view the stimulus as an objection to an antecedent claim, i.e. an objection to the claim that we should decide to define "intelligent life" in some more precise way, and choose the answer choice that correctly describes how the passage is challenging that claim.
The passage challenges this claim by explaining that the only way we will be able to find intelligent life is to leave the definition open to new, unimagined possibilities, as opposed to redefining it in some more precise way.
Answer choice (D) states: "arguing that the claim, if acted on, would be counterproductive."
This is exactly what the passage is doing. If we act on the antecedent claim, then it will be counterproductive, because the antecedent claim was set forth to determine whether intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe, but if we were to actually redefine "intelligent life" in a more precise way, then we would not find or recognize intelligent life elsewhere.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
