PT54, S2, Q22

[kohsuen]

"The publications of Professor Vallejo on the..........If Professor Vallejo is correct, there is insufficient evidence for claiming, as most historians have done for many years, that glassblowing began in Egypt. So.......if Professor Vallejo is correct, we must conclude that glassblowing originated elsewhere."

I don't seem to understand entirely why the answer choice is E, "It confuses inadequate evidence for truth with evidence for falsity." What is the inadequate evidence and evidence for falsity here?

[Micdiddy]

Maybe a reproduction of the entire question would help people respond?

[Iching]

here is my idea:
"inadequate evidence" = "insufficient evidence for claiming....in Egypt"
"falsity" = "glassblowing originated elsewhere"

true or false is not inferring to the fact, but the conclusion. here "in Egypt" is the "truth", and elsewhere the "falsity".

hope it's gonna help.

[Henri_Allen]

I agree with, Iching. But giving us the full question would help tremendously.

[NiceOne]

Hi kohsuen,

In the second sentence, the student states that if Vallejo is correct, there is insufficient evidence for claiming that glass-blowing originated in Egypt.
However, in the conclusion the student incorrectly infers that to mean glass-blowing must have originated elsewhere.

According to the passage, Vallejo only claims there is insufficient evidence for determining glass-blowing originated in Egypt, not that there is evidence that glass-blowing did not originate in Egypt, or that there is evidence that glass-blowing originated elsewhere.

The fault in this passage’s reasoning is similar to fault in this more simple passage:

Although most scientists believe that cigarettes cause cancer, a new study by Scientist X questions the validity of the evidence linking cigarettes to cancer. Therefore, if Scientist X is correct, cigarettes don’t cause cancer.

Kohsuen, hope this helps.

Regards.