#4 – M: The Greek alphabet must have been invented by some

[Kelly R]

Hi PS,

I found this stimulus a bit difficult to untangle and am curious to know if my interpretation of it is fair and accurate. Thanks!

M seems to suggest that the Greek alphabet was invented by someone who knew the Phoenician writing system and who wanted to write down Homeric epics to preserve the tradition of oral poetry.

P retorts that this would have been a pointless endeavor (on the part of the inventor) since anyone who knows the epics well enough to write them down would, in fact, not need to write them down, as they already know them. P further asserts that writing down the epics would not enable others to read the poems which, written in a foreign language, would be inaccessible to the general public.

Answer E seems to correctly suggest that P might have overlooked a crucial reason that the Greek alphabet was invented and the epics subsequently written down. Maybe the epics were written down not because the inventor didn't know the epics, nor so that others could read the epics, but instead so that the inventor could teach others the alphabet (ostensibly through the Homeric epics). Does this track?

[Adam Tyson]

I think your breakdown of the stimulus is excellent, Kelly R, but I think you may be adding a little help to answer E that it doesn't need. It's not about the inventor of the Greek alphabet wanting to use the Homeric epics as a tool to teach the new Greek alphabet. Answer E challenges P's premise that the endeavor would be pointless since nobody else would be able to read the new writing. Answer E is saying "maybe the inventor intended to reach others the new system, and then writing down the epics in the new system would not be pointless? Others could LEARN to read it, even if they don't know how to do so at first." So the inventor could have invented the system, used it to write down a whole lot of stuff, and then started teaching others the system so that they could read what he wrote and also, perhaps, write down more stuff.

P's argument is pretty silly, right? By that logic, there would never have been any reason to invent any kind of writing, ever, because only the inventor would know how to use it. Of course the inventor of a writing system will want to teach it to others and see it spread! Pointing out that silly mistake on P's part is what this Flaw question is all about.

[miriamson07]

Hi,

Would it be accurate to say that answer choice E attacks only one of the two premises of P's argument? The two premises would be 1. a person who knows the epics very well wouldn't want to write them down, and 2. no one would be able to read the Greek alphabet at the time. If I'm understanding correctly, answer choice E would only attack the 2nd premise.

Thank you!

[Adam Tyson]

In my earlier explanation, I referred to a premise of P's argument, that the whole endeavor to create an alphabet and write down the poem would be pointless. That's really more of an intermediate conclusion in the argument, on the way to the main conclusion that M's argument is laughable. Answer E doesn't attack the premise that nobody else would be able to read the new alphabet. Instead, it points out that people who didn't know how to read it at first could be taught to read it, which is a whole new idea that P never considered. You're right that it doesn't deal with P's premise about the inventor not needing to write it down. It's saying that even though the premises of P's argument may be true, they don't support the conclusion because there is another factor to consider.