@ said:

@ said:

I think the lessons on “Causation and Phenomenon-Hypothesis Questions” might be helpful to you, particularly the “Causation Strategy” PDF. In my mind, the author’s argument is the assumption that the painters must have eaten sea animals. The premise is the fact that the journey is long, and the conclusion is that the subject matter theory is wrong. We are free to attack the argument, and D offers a “competing explanation” to the seafood thing.

Even if I am incorrectly identifying the premise, argument, and conclusion (RIP), a diet containing dried meats wouldn’t preclude the painters from eating some seafood, as well, so the premise would be intact. They could have eaten both, perhaps with a higher ratio of dried meat to fish. Answer B on question 60.1.13 similarly appears to attack the premise, but JY has a great explanation on why it actually does not, which you may also find helpful.

This was a very thought-provoking question that I feel added to my own understanding, so thanks for posting! :)

But it's not an assumption; it's a premise that was stated explicitly. I'm pretty sure assumptions aren't explicitly stated. And there was no mention of a causal argument in the video explanation, nor did I see one.

Let me try rephrasing. Because the journey is long, the author assumes the painters must have eaten something besides meat. Being at sea, he assumes this would cause them to eat seafood. That's the series of assumptions as I interpreted them, which is what I meant when I vaguely wrote that the "assumption" is eating seafood. This is why I found this question to be so difficult, personally.

But again, because we know D is an incorrect answer, we know for certain that it does not attack the premise. I think this is because of the blurring of assumptions versus premise that I am (badly) attempting to explain, but more obviously so because of my second point in my og comment about how eating meat would not preclude eating seafood.

I don't know that I can explain this any differently, so hopefully someone else comes up with something a bit more helpful to you. Good luck! :)

I think the lessons on “Causation and Phenomenon-Hypothesis Questions” might be helpful to you, particularly the “Causation Strategy” PDF. In my mind, the author’s argument is the assumption that the painters must have eaten sea animals. The premise is the fact that the journey is long, and the conclusion is that the subject matter theory is wrong. We are free to attack the argument, and D offers a “competing explanation” to the seafood thing.

Even if I am incorrectly identifying the premise, argument, and conclusion (RIP), a diet containing dried meats wouldn’t preclude the painters from eating some seafood, as well, so the premise would be intact. They could have eaten both, perhaps with a higher ratio of dried meat to fish. Answer B on question 60.1.13 similarly appears to attack the premise, but JY has a great explanation on why it actually does not, which you may also find helpful.

This was a very thought-provoking question that I feel added to my own understanding, so thanks for posting! :)