PT83.S1.Q23 - The traditional view of the Roman emperor Caligula

ayannaabrownn

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]

Leah M B

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.

kkhodaverdian

That's not PT 82.

lTexlawz

It is section 1 Q 23 in PrepTest 83.

J.Y. Ping

@"Leah M B" Good response!

@ayannaabrownn
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.