Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardMethod of Reasoning

Historian: Proponents of the 'environmental determinism' hypothesis argue that the precipitous collapse of the Bronze Age palatial economies was primarily caused by a prolonged period of severe mega-droughts, citing palynological (pollen) data that indicates a sudden, widespread decline in traditional cereal agriculture. However, this interpretation fundamentally misreads the archaeological record. The very same palynological data reveals a concurrent and massive surge in the cultivation of drought-resistant, deep-rooted legumes. If environmental desiccation were the primary driver of the collapse, it would necessitate a failure of societal adaptation. Yet, the rapid agricultural shift indicates a highly responsive and initially successful adaptation. Thus, the ultimate collapse must have been precipitated by a subsequent failure in the centralized redistribution networks that managed these new crops, not the climatic shift itself.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the method of reasoning used in the historian's argument?

  1. It challenges a causal explanation by arguing that the very evidence presented in its favor also reveals a successful mitigating response, thereby requiring an alternative explanation for the outcome.Answer
  2. B
    It undermines a historical hypothesis by disputing the accuracy of the empirical data that the proponents of the hypothesis rely upon.
  3. C
    It refutes a causal claim by demonstrating that the phenomenon identified as the primary cause was actually an effect of the resulting systemic collapse.
  4. D
    It utilizes evidence of a rapid agricultural shift to demonstrate that the palatial economies did not actually undergo the precipitous collapse that scholars claim.
  5. E
    It rejects an interpretation by pointing out that the proponents falsely assume that severe climatic shifts will inevitably lead to the downfall of any complex society.

Answer

The historian's argument challenges a causal explanation by arguing that the very evidence presented in its favor also reveals a successful mitigating response, thereby requiring an alternative explanation for the outcome.
The correct answer accurately maps every part of the abstract description to the concrete argument. The 'causal explanation' is the mega-drought theory. The 'evidence presented in its favor' is the pollen data. The 'successful mitigating response' is the shift to drought-resistant legumes. The 'alternative explanation for the outcome' is the failure in the centralized redistribution networks.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the historian's argument.
The collapse was caused by a failure in redistribution networks, not the climatic shift itself.
To understand the ultimate goal of the argument.
2
Identify the opposing view the historian is attacking.
The 'environmental determinism' hypothesis, which claims mega-droughts caused the collapse, supported by pollen data showing a decline in cereal agriculture.
To understand what the historian is responding to.
3
Analyze the historian's premises and how they relate to the opponent's evidence.
The historian uses the opponent's own source of evidence (pollen data) to show a shift to drought-resistant crops. This is used as an intermediate conclusion to prove the society successfully adapted to the drought.
To trace the logical path from the premises to the main conclusion.
4
Synthesize the abstract method of reasoning.
The author takes the evidence used to support a causal claim, shows that it actually proves a successful adaptation (mitigation), and concludes that a different cause must be responsible for the final outcome.
To match the argument's structure with the correct answer choice.

Key Concept

Method of Reasoning - Causal Refutation via Evidence Reinterpretation
Rate this question

Topics

Method of Reasoning

More questions from this topic