This is an argument in part question because we're being asked for the role of a particular line in the stimulus.

Let's start by breaking down the stimulus first, and then we'll come back to the question stem to figure out what claim we're being asked about.

so supporters of this school of thought called Mechanism,

they produced numerous arguments that sought to use the principles of Mechanism to establish the superiority of monarchies over all other systems of government.

So this group of people tried to use the principles of Mechanism to argue that monarchies are better than all other kinds of government,

including democracies, autocracy, theocracy.

These people thought monarchy was better than the rest, and they produced lots of arguments to that effect.

Now the next line says,

This proliferation of arguments, and so proliferation means spreading, or it might have something to do with the sheer number of arguments,

that spreading of a lot of arguments has been construed as evidence that the principles of Mechanism themselves are in tension with democracy.

So now the author is describing how there is this view out there that the number of arguments in favor of monarchy over democracy

has been interpreted by some people, not necessarily the author, but it's been interpreted by some people,

as suggesting that Mechanism conflicts with democracy.

But here's where the author's own opinion comes in.

The author says,

But it is more likely that the principles of Mechanism support democracy and that the arguments multiplied because none of them worked.

And so in the last sentence, the author is rejecting the idea that the principles of Mechanism conflict with democracy.

Other people might think that. Other people think that because you have so many arguments that these other people gave,

using the principles of Mechanism against democracy, that that somehow shows that the principles themselves conflict with democracy.

This is what other people are thinking.

But the author comes in at the very end, and the author's conclusion is that that's likely to be wrong.

It's more likely that the principles support democracy,

and the reason we have such a proliferation of arguments is not because of some kind of conflict with democracy,

but it's just because none of them worked.

So now let's see what claim we're being asked about.

The claim that the proliferation of arguments has been construed as evidence that the principles of Mechanism are in tension with democracy.

So this is a claim we're being asked about, and that would be this line right over here.

And that line between the blue brackets is something that the author actually criticizes.

There are people out there who think that the proliferation of arguments shows the principles conflict with democracy,

but the author's saying, actually no, it's more likely that the principles support democracy.

So if you think there's a conflict, that's actually more likely to be wrong than right.

The correct view is that the principles of Mechanism support democracy.

That's what the author's saying here.

So when I go to these answers here, I'm looking for something like,

the blue bracketed part describes a view that the author argues against,

or describes a view that the author disagrees with, something like that.

Answer choice A says the blue bracketed part states a principle that the argument seeks to establish.

But that's not correct, because the author's conclusion actually goes against the view described in the blue bracketed part.

So the author does not seek to establish the blue bracketed part.

Well, that's not correct.

The author isn't trying to explain why the evidence has been construed in this way.

Now, perhaps if this were more narrow, and we were just being asked about the proliferation of arguments,

the numerous arguments here,

maybe you could say that part of the author's intention is to explain why there are so many arguments,

because the author does say at the very bottom,

the arguments multiplied because none of them worked.

So perhaps you could construe that as an explanation for why there's so many arguments.

But the thing we're being asked about is actually the entire claim,

about how the proliferation of arguments has been construed.

And that's not something the author tries to explain.

The author's not trying to say, why do people interpret the arguments in this way?

That's not what the author's trying to explain.

So that's why B is wrong.

and that's exactly right.

It introduces the hypothesis that the principles of mechanism themselves are in tension with democracy.

Other people believe the spreading of arguments shows that there's a conflict.

That's the hypothesis, and then the author challenges that hypothesis.

That's why C is correct.

Next, D says the blue bracketed part provides evidence in support of the conclusion.

The author's conclusion actually goes against the view described in the blue bracketed part.

So D is not correct.

Well, no, the conclusion is in the last sentence.

It is not in the blue bracketed part.