Self-paced
In 1578 Moroccan troops defeated a Portuguese army on Moroccan soil. ████████ ███████ ██ ██████████ ██████████████ ██████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ████ █████████ ██ ████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ █████████ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ █████████████ ██████ █████████████ █████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████████ █████ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ ████ █ ████████ ███████ █████ ███ ████████ ████████ ██████ █████ █████ ████ ███ ██████████ ████████ ███ ██████████ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ████████ ██████████ ███ █████████ █████████ ███ ██ ████ ███ █ █████████████ ██████ ███ ██████████ █████████ █████ █████████████ █████ ██ ███████████ ████ ████ █████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ █████ █████ ███
Argument Breakdown
The argument discusses a historical battle between Portugal and Morocco, where the king of Portugal was killed. However, accounts at that time don't mention the king's death. The argument hypothesizes that the these omissions occurred because the Portuguese felt humiliated by the king's death.
In support, the argument advances the sub-conclusion that the omissions could not have been explained by ignorance. This is further supported by a specific example of two officers who didn't mention the death in their battle accounts, even though they certainly knew about the death. By eliminating this possibility, the argument indirectly supports the hypothesis of humiliation.
21.
The discussion about the two ██████████ ████████ ████████ ███ ████████ ██
a
providing grounds for ███████████ ██ ███████████ ███████████
The discussion of the two officers gives a specific example of writers whose omission of the king's death couldn't be explained by ignorance. This supports the sub-conclusion that
b
supplying indirect evidence ████ █ ████████ █████ ████████ ████████
The death of King Sebastian isn't disputed: no one disagrees that it happened. The argument is trying to explain why Portuguese writers at that time didn't mention the king's death. That's not the same as denying that it occurred.
c
resolving an apparent █████████████ ███████ ███ ██ ███ ████████████ ████ ████████
The only apparent contradiction in the stimulus is the argument's claim that the Portuguese knew about their king's death, but still avoided writing about it. The discussion of the two officers is just an example of this phenomenon, not a resolution of it. If this is truly a contradiction, it's resolved by the conclusion that the Portuguese were too humiliated to discuss the death.
d
giving evidence supporting █ ███████ █████████████ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ████ ██████████ ██ ██████████ █████
The main conclusion does make reference to psychology, but it's not explicitly based on a general psychological principle. Instead, it makes a specific psychological claim: that Portuguese writers were humiliated by their king's death.
Even if this were a general principle, the discussion of the two officers doesn't directly support the humiliation explanation. It functions to eliminate the alternative explanation that Portuguese writers simply weren't aware of the death. This only indirectly supports the main conclusion.
e
offering grounds for ████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████████ ████ ██████████
The argument doesn't address any historical reports that conflict with its main conclusion. Such reports would need to present an alternative explanation for why Portuguese writers didn't mention their king's death. But the only unreliable historical reports we know of are the ones whose omissions the argument is trying to explain.