Science writer: Lemaître argued that the universe began with the explosion of a “primeval atom,” a singular point of infinite gravity in space and time. If this is correct, our current observations should reveal galaxies accelerating away from one another. This is precisely what we observe. Yet because there is another theory—the oscillating universe theory—that makes exactly this same prediction, Lemaître’s theory must be considered inadequate.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the science writer’s reasoning?
(A) The conclusion is derived partly from assertions attributed to a purported expert whose credibility is not established.
(B) The conclusion is based on a shift in meaning of a key term from one part of the argument to another part.
(C) The science writer takes for granted the existence of a causal connection between observed phenomena.
(D) The science writer fails to see that one theory’s correctly predicting observed data cannot itself constitute evidence against an alternative theory that also does this.
(E) The science writer presumes, without providing justification, that there are only two possible explanations for the phenomena in question.
A. You’re absolutely right: the argument is comparing theories, not the people behind them.
B. There’s no term in the argument that clearly shifts meaning. These types of answer choices require very close, precise textual changes — and none of that is happening here.
C. There’s no cause-and-effect logic here. It’s all about correlation: both theories match the observed data.
D. Correct. This is a common flaw: assuming that proving one theory is consistent with evidence means the competing theory is wrong — when in fact, both can be consistent with the same data.
E. The author never says that these are the only two possible theories, nor that one must be right and the other must be wrong.
