The conclusion of this argument is: astrology is "both an art and a science."
Why? Well, it is a science because there are scientific components to astrology, such as "complicated mathematics" and the requirement of "astronomical knowledge." Likewise, it is considered an art because there is a "synthesis of a multitude of factors and symbols into a coherent statement of their relevance to an individual."
What is the leap here? Well, why does having scientific components make something a science? Why does having a synthesis of a multitude of factors make something an art? We are given no reason as to why these things make something a science or an art.
Furthermore, just because one part of something has a scientific component does not make the whole of it a science. No one can say that a cookie is butter because a cookie has butter as one of its many ingredients. So, as you can see, this is a part to whole flaw.
Answer choice (B) points out this exact flaw: "incorrectly infers that a practice is a science merely from the fact that the practice has some scientific components."
Again, just because some aspects of astrology have scientific components does not mean that astrology is a science.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
March 6, 2022
Hello there!
Why wouldn't I question the statement of astrology being an art?
Emil-KunkinMarch 25, 2022
When evaluating an argument, we can only assess it on if the conclusion follows from the premises. We cannot bring in outside information or opinions, regardless of how correct they are.
