Self-study
Some food historians conclude that recipes compiled by an ancient Roman named Apicius are a reliable indicator of how wealthy Romans prepared and spiced their food. █████ ███ █████ ███████ ████ ███████ ████ ████ █████████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███ ██████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████ ██████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Some historians conclude that recipes compiled by Apicius are a reliable indicator of how wealthy Romans made their food. The author’s conclusion is that the historian’s conclusion isn’t necessarily true. This is because only a few other recipes from Apicius’s time have survived, and Apicius’s recipes may be unrepresentative of ancient Roman food. The author also relies on an analogy to many modern chefs; just as their recipes are unusual, so too might be Apicius’s.
Describe Method of Reasoning
The author criticizes the historian’s conclusion by pointing out that it might be based on an unrepresentative sample of recipes. The author also relies on an analogy to support the possibility that the sample is unrepresentative.
15.
The argument does which one ██ ███ ██████████
a
It rejects a ████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ █████ ██ ████████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ███
Calling a conclusion “too hasty” is not the same as rejecting it. The author doesn’t necessarily believe the historians are wrong; he’s simply pointing out they might be wrong. Also, the author relies on an analogy; not “solely” on the claim that there’s insufficient evidence.
b
It offers support ███ █ ████ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ █ ██████ ████████ ██ ████ █████
The author does not support the historians’ view. He points out that there are reasons to think it might not be true.
c
It takes issue ████ ███ ████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ █ ██████ ████████ ████ ███████████ █████████ █████ █████
The author takes issue with the view of the historians (”the conclusion is too hasty”) by providing a modern analogue (”many notable modern chefs”) that purportedly undercuts the historians’ view (suggesting that Apicius’s recipes might be unrepresentative).
d
It uses a ██████████ █████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ ███ █████ ███ █ ██████████ █████ █ ██████ █████████
The author’s conclusion is not about the modern chefs. The modern chefs are used as support for the conclusion that the historian’s conclusion is too hasty.
e
It tries to ███████ █ ██████████ █████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ █████████ █ ██████████ █████ ██ ████ ████ ██████████ ██ █ ██████ █████████
The conclusion is not about the “similarity of historical times to modern times.” The author uses an analogy to modern chefs to conclude that we do not necessarily know that Apicius’s recipes are representative of the food of wealthy ancient Romans.