#23 - The traditional view of the Roman emperor Caligula as

[Administrator]

Please post your questions below! Thank you!

[DJYoungCorduroy]

I got this one wrong, and #24 in section 3...both strengthen questions.

Anyway, I am not comfortable with any of the answer choices here, and at least thought that B expressed what could possibly be an assumption of the argument, so I chose B.

I do not like the general nature of B, and it also seems like something that common sense would dictate to be true and applicable to almost any claim at any time...so looking back probably shouldn't have chosen it just based on that.

However, I didn't like C because I thought it fell out of the scope of the argument.

Can you offer some guidance on this?

[James Finch]

Hi Young Cord,

Strengthen and Weaken answer choices will, by their nature, fall outside what is presented in the stimulus, because they function as new premises to be added to the argument being made, bolstering or undermining that argument, respectively. In this case, the stimulus is claiming Caligula wasn't as bad as portrayed, because those portrayals were written long after his reign by people antagonistic towards him. So as a prephrase to strengthen that argument, accusing Caligula of stock "evil villain" behavior would make it less likely that he actually engaged in that behavior and more likely these were smears used on any previous ruler out of favor at the time.

Answer choice (C) essentially states the above prephrase, by showing a consistency to the acts attributed to those considered bad rulers up that point. This does not mean that those rulers did not do those things, but it does make it less likely that they all did all of the things attributed to them. Most importantly, the idea that these were known accusations made against prior disfavored rulers does make it more likely that Caligula's name was effectively written in to accounts about prior rulers in order to unfairly discredit him.

Hope this helps!

[DJYoungCorduroy]

Praise

[lathlee]

Isn't b) more powerfully strengthen the conclusion than c)? as in making sure the source of strengthening premise, data, documents, more valid. the answer choice, C), isn't this actually weaken the conclusion?

conclusion: insane and cruel tyrant view is challenged.

[BostonLawGuy]

I agree with the previous poster that none of the answer choices clearly strengthen the assertion that Caligula's reputation as cruel and a tyrant was not as it was attributed.

Since a strengthening question relies on bolstering the premises and the historian's premise indicated that there was less documentation, I chose an answer that reinforced having a low amount of documentation, (A).

Answer choice C states that the horrific acts attributed to Caligula were similar to other, previous leaders. I'm wondering how that bolsters the strength between the premises and conclusion. Does it support the other premise that states these accounts were written by Caligula's enemies?

If so, then both answer choices seem to support one of the two premises.

[freddythepup]

Hi,

Agree with BostonLawGuy, can someone please explain in more detail why C works the best here to strengthen the argument? When I read C, I did not see how the specific acts that were attributed to Caligula being similar to acts attributed in earlier writings to other leaders helps the argument here. So what if they're similar? What can we conclude from that? That Caligula's enemies copied those similar writings of outrageous acts done by other leaders in order to make Caligula look bad? I thought that if C were the right answer, then I'd have to assume more things. therefore I chose A because I thought that if there were less documentation (positive and negative) about Caligula than any other reigns of other emperors during his era, then that helps the author's point that little documentation survives (and not just little negative documentation), little of any documentation survives. Can you explain more on why C works, but A doesn't? Thanks!

[Michaeltinti22]

So I was struggling with this question, and conveniently enough I was struggling between A, B, and C, so I think I can give an adequate enough explanation for why I think A and B are wrong, and why C is right.

A.) This was the first AC I chose, but I jumped off ship for B (more on that later). My first inclination fell in line with your thoughts; if there was less documentation in general, that would fit into the historians argument. But when I thought about it again, this actually weakens the historian's argument. Say you have loads of general information about Caligula, but very little information specifically about his jerk-qualities. That's fishy, right? If you have a lot of general information, and if he was actually a tyrant, wouldn't you expect more evidence of that tyranny? Now say you have very little information at all. Well, now it makes sense that there's not too much evidence supporting the tyranny argument, since there's little evidence in general. In the first instance, the tyranny evidence makes up a very small percentage of available documentation; in the second, it makes up a much larger percentage. Which case supports the historian's argument the best? The first. Therefore, A can't be the right answer.

B.) I jumped from A to B before immediately jumping to C, mostly out of good luck, to be honest. This makes common sense for sure, but note the language here: it says they "view" the tyrant unfavorably. I view events all the time, but that doesn't mean I document them. You need to make the assumption that 1.) these people who view Caligula unfavorably are literate, and 2.) they are willing to write down their dislike of a tyrant. That word choice is what ultimately scared me off.

C.) Focus on the argument of the historians. They claim that the accounts made by Caligula's enemies created the majority of the cruelty accounts; in other words, the accounts are fictional. To strengthen, make this fictional argument more powerful. Say you are presented with two historical figures; you are told one of them is fictional, and you are tasked with determining which one is. One figure's actions are completely unique from those before him; you find the other has been copied verbatim from past figures that occupied the same position. Which seems more suspicious? The second one. That's why C strengthens the argument.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi all,

First, shout out to Michael for his attempt on this!

It seems like there was a lot of confusion on this one, so let's take a look at the argument, and answer choices (A), (B), and (C).

The author of the stimulus challenges a traditional viewpoint of Caligula as a cruel tyrant. What's the reason the author questions the traditional view? Well, the little evidence of Caligula as a tyrant was written by his enemies. We want to strengthen this argument---that the evidence we have of Caligula as a tyrant isn't reliable for some reason.

Answer choice (A) says there is less documentation for Caligula than others. But it doesn't give us a good reason to distrust the evidence we have. The fact that we have less evidence of any sort from Caligula's reign doesn't mean that the evidence we have is no good. Think about it this way. We have more historical information about ancient Egypt than ancient Indus Valley civilizations. But we don't have any reason to think that the information we have on the ancient Indus Valley civilizations is unreliable. We need an answer choice that gives the author a reason to question the historical accounts of Caligula that we do have.

Answer choice (B) says that the people who lived under a cruel tyrant are more likely to view him unfavorably. On first glance, this looks like a good answer choice. However, it's a shell game answer choice. The stimulus talks about Caligula's enemies, not his subjects (the people who lived under him). His enemies wrote the accounts of him as a tyrant, not his subjects. So the fact that his subjects would view him unfavorably doesn't impact if his enemies do.

Answer choice (C) says that the specific acts Caligula is accused of are very similar to acts attributed to other alleged tyrants. How does this one strengthen the argument? It makes it seem less likely that they are accurate. It's like the enemies just copy/pasted a list of complaints and bad acts to attribute to Caligula. The standard "tyrant" list. It doesn't mean that he couldn't have done the things listed, but that it seems less persuasive.

Hope that helps!
Rachael

[Pragmatism]

After reading this thread, I have seen not anyone make this particular case I am about to make. I actually got this question wrong, but upon further review, I believe my reasoning provides the most sound reasoning to why answer choice C is right. I would love your feedback on my thought process.

The modern historians challenge the traditional view of the Roman emperor Caligula as a cruel and insane tyrant on the following basis: (1) there is insufficient documentation of his alleged cruelty (kind of like our politics where everyone is something or another) and (2) the information that has been passed down were provided ever so kindly by his enemies.

I thought about the premises in relation to answer choice C, and I realized, though it maybe a Great Wall of China stretch, that the author might be relying on the word allegedly along with the passing of information down by the enemies as something that, at the time and specific to particular situations, was heavily frowned upon or shunned on. What if the limited information that were passed down were ample for other emperors, but regarding this, whatever that act may be, particular act, it shined a negative light on them, as was with emperor Caligula, but outside of that those same emperors were looked upon as being nice kind hearted Mother Teresa leaders, then it would help weaken the traditional view on emperor Caligula.

Please tell me what you think.