Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardGeneral Method of Reasoning

Historian: A number of academics attribute the rapid disintegration of the Ruvonian Empire primarily to external invasions, citing the unprecedented number of border incursions recorded during the empire's final decade. However, this interpretation fundamentally confuses cause and effect. Two decades prior to these incursions, a sudden devaluation of the empire's currency triggered a severe economic depression that left the government unable to fund its military. This internal decay resulted in completely undefended frontiers. Therefore, the late surge in border incursions was a symptom of the empire's disintegration, not the underlying cause of it.

Statement: The historian attacks the academics' argument by demonstrating that the very evidence they cite to support their causal claim actually proves that the reverse causal relationship holds.

Answer: Answer

Answer

False
The statement is false because it mischaracterizes the structural mechanics of the historian's argument. The historian does indeed conclude that the causal relationship is the reverse of what the academics claim (arguing that the empire's disintegration led to the border incursions, not vice versa). However, the historian does not demonstrate this by showing that the academics' own evidence (the record of border incursions) proves this reverse relationship. Instead, the historian introduces completely new evidence—a historical currency devaluation and subsequent economic collapse—to establish the true cause. The academics' evidence is ultimately reinterpreted as a symptom of the new evidence provided, rather than serving as the proof of the reverse relationship itself.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the causal claim made by the opposing party (the academics).
The academics claim that external invasions (border incursions) caused the disintegration of the Ruvonian Empire.
Understanding the target of the critique is necessary to evaluate how the historian attacks it.
2
Identify the specific evidence cited by the academics to support their claim.
The academics cite the 'unprecedented number of border incursions recorded during the empire's final decade' as their evidence.
The statement specifically claims the historian uses this exact evidence to prove the reverse relationship.
3
Analyze the historian's conclusion regarding the causal relationship.
The historian concludes that the causal relationship is reversed: internal decay and disintegration caused the border incursions, making the incursions a 'symptom'.
This determines if the second half of the statement ('proves that the reverse causal relationship holds') accurately reflects the conclusion.
4
Evaluate whether the historian uses the academics' evidence to prove this reverse relationship.
The historian introduces entirely new historical evidence (currency devaluation, economic depression, inability to fund the military) to prove the reverse relationship, rather than using the academics' evidence to prove it.
This determines the accuracy of the first half of the statement ('demonstrating that the very evidence they cite... actually proves').
5
Compare findings to the given statement.
Because the historian relies on new evidence rather than the academics' evidence to establish the reversed causality, the structural description in the statement is false.
An accurate method of reasoning description must correctly identify both the conclusion drawn and the precise premises used to draw it.

Key Concept

Accurately identifying the specific premises used to reach a conclusion in an argument's method of reasoning.
Rate this question

Topics

General Method of Reasoning

More questions from this topic