Subscription pricing
If anyone has a good explanation as to why number 23 on section 2 is C, I would love to here it.
[Admin edit: title]
0
If anyone has a good explanation as to why number 23 on section 2 is C, I would love to here it.
[Admin edit: title]
5 comments
Posting this here so anyone in the future can review. Fictional analogy
Argument: Gaddafi was viewed as tyrant
Modern historians: There is very little evidence to prove this and the allegations are from his political opponents.
Our job is to pick a fact that supports the historians' contention.
A: The worse answer. If there is less documentation about Gaddafi than 51% of his contemporaries, or if the information about Gaddafi, chronicles just his adult life and the ones about his contemporaries chronicles their life from birth, we still haven't helped the modern historians mount a successful challenge to the "Gaddafi was a tyrant" narrative
B. I picked this during my BR review because I thought by making it about their opinion and not the fact that he blew up a plane with his own people, we can discredit their claim. BUT the argument is in fact about their view; how they interpreted their experience. It's an entirely subjective assessment.
C. I chose this during my first round but changed my mind. I thought, "what if the allegations are true?" But they are just that. Allegations. And the stimulus doesn't warrant us to make that leap.
D. is the opposite of what we looking for.
E. Comparison to Goldimir Vutin is irrelevant
Takeaway is to ask yourself how the fact you picked in the answer choice BOLSTERS the argument. What is the claim the author wants you to strengthen B doesn't provide support for the critics' position. The best it does it weaken the traditional view. Even that, the support is still lacking, because we need reason to believe their opinion doesn't count. Our job is to select a fact that firms up the position of the critics. C does just that by reducing the claim to allegations. Allegations, until proven are just allegations and nothing more. C is positing that there is no evidence to support this and also saying the view are from his enemies. Adding the fact that, they are just 'allegation' labels that were throw around to other leaders, supports their point that there is NO actual evidence and that the view is from political opponents.
@leahbeuk911 Good response!
@kkhodaverdian548
Think about it this way, suppose it was said that (1) Caligula poisoned his grandmother; (2) forced a father to watch his son be executed and then make fun of the execution at a celebration; and (3) fed criminals to Gladitorial lions to be eaten alive. These are specific acts of cruelty. They may be true or they may be made up.
Let's say that later we encounter older sources that tell similar stories of cruel tyrants who (1) poisoned their grandfathers; (2) forced a mother to watch her son be executed; and (3) fed their political opponents to live animals.
How would this affect our evaluation of the accounts of Caligula's cruelty? I think this would make us suspicious of those accounts. It still may be true that he did those things. But now we're suspicious that maybe the historian made up those accounts (and plagiarized to boot)! The hypothesis that the historians were telling the truth now seems to require quite the coincidence that Caligula did just the same acts of cruelty that were already documented and attributed during his reign to previously cruel tyrants.
It is section 1 Q 23 in PrepTest 83.
That's not PT 82.
This was a super tough one. I got it right on the exam, but only narrowed it down to being about 80% sure.
So, my best take on it is that C is correct because essentially, the modern historians are arguing that the writings about Caligula being cruel and insane are inaccurate, maybe falsified. They were biased, because they were written by Caligula's enemies. C is correct because the similarities between the acts that Caligula allegedly did and other tyrants back then could also point to the writings about him being inaccurate. Maybe the acts weren't even done by Caligula at all. His enemies just wrote about things other people did and stuck Caligula's name on it because they hated him.
None of the other answer choices seem to be dealing with the accuracy of the claims about Caligula. A is about the volume of documentation, B is about the views of the people, D is how the people viewed Caligula vs others, and E is about modern tyrants. Only C is doing the same thing, attacking the validity of the claims about Caligula, implying that they could be falsified.
Again tbh, I don't have the best grasp on this question so I may not even be on the right track. But that is how I did my elimination of other options. Hope it helps.