Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumArgument Analysis and Evaluating Claims

Historians examining fourteenth-century Mediterranean grain market fluctuations have long posited that sudden spikes in wheat prices were primarily driven by maritime piracy, which interrupted supply lines from major exporting ports. To support this claim, researchers cite official naval decrees from 1340 to 1370 demanding military escorts for merchant fleets during harvest months. However, a recent analysis of regional tax ledgers demonstrates that local grain harvest yields dropped by over forty percent during the exact years price surges occurred, coinciding with documented periods of localized drought. Consequently, some analysts now argue that the hypothesis attributing price spikes primarily to piracy fails to recognize that agricultural scarcity, rather than transport disruption, was the primary driver.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument made by the analysts in the final sentence?

  1. Port logs from the period show that pirate blockades prevented ships from reaching coastal granaries, causing harvested grain to rot in warehouses and recorded tax yield figures to drop sharply.Answer
  2. B
    Naval records indicate that pirate attacks in the Mediterranean occurred predominantly during winter months rather than during the peak summer harvest season.
  3. C
    Inland agricultural regions that did not rely on maritime transport routes experienced stable grain prices throughout the mid-fourteenth century.
  4. D
    The financial expenditure required to fund military escorts for merchant vessels regularly exceeded the total value of grain lost to pirate seizures.
  5. E
    Fourteenth-century weather records show that localized droughts typically persisted across multiple consecutive growing seasons rather than single years.

Answer

The argument is most weakened by demonstrating that port logs from the period show pirate blockades prevented ships from reaching coastal granaries, causing harvested grain to rot in warehouses and recorded tax yield figures to drop sharply.
The correct answer undermines the analysts' argument by showing that the evidence used to support agricultural scarcity (the drop in tax yields) was actually caused by piracy itself. If pirate blockades prevented grain from being transported and recorded in tax ledgers, the low yield figures reflect piracy-induced logistics failure rather than drought, removing the primary basis for the analysts' claim.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion/argument to be weakened.
The analysts conclude that agricultural scarcity (drought), rather than piracy (transport disruption), was the primary driver of grain price spikes because tax ledgers showed a 40% drop in harvest yields during price surges.
Understanding the premise-to-conclusion link is required to target its underlying vulnerability.
2
Evaluate the underlying assumption connecting the evidence to the conclusion.
The analysts assume that the recorded drop in tax yields reflects genuine agricultural failure caused by drought, independent of piracy.
If the tax yield data was itself caused or skewed by piracy, the evidence for drought as an independent primary cause breaks down.
3
Select the choice that directly undermines this connection.
Showing that pirate blockades caused grain to rot in warehouses before tax recording could take place accounts for the drop in recorded yield figures through piracy rather than drought.
This provides an alternative explanation for the evidence, severely weakening the analysts' claim.

Key Concept

Evaluating Arguments and Weakening Counter-Claims
Rate this question

Topics

Argument Analysis and Evaluating Claims

More questions from this topic