#14 - Seventeenth-century proponents of the philosophical

[Administrator]

Please post below with any questions!

[mokkyukkyu]

Hi,

So...I chose C but I was not sure about the word "hypothesis". is it hypothesis?
I thought it's the fact, not hypothesis.
People did believe that right? It's not like...this may explain something etc.
It also says "as evidence" so it seems it's not someone's idea about something.
Why does it say hypothesis?

[Nikki Siclunov]

Hi mokkyukkyu,

The claim in question is indeed a hypothesis, because it attempts to provide a cause for the observed effect: given the proliferation of monarchist arguments, some people believed that mechanism and democracy don't mesh well. This is a theory, or a hypothesis, that attributes a particular explanation to an observed phenomenon. And yes, indeed, this hypothesis - like many others - is a matter of belief. Beliefs can be construed as evidence. There is nothing wrong with that

The argument challenges this hypothesis (or explanation) by providing an alternative one: perhaps the principles of mechanism actually support democracy, and the arguments multiplied because none of them worked.

Hope this helps!

Thanks,

[heartofsunshine]

Hello, I narrowed this down to B and C and chose B. I am thinking what I missed is that B says "seeks to explain" whereas C says "to challenge". to challenge more accurately fits what is occurring since the author doesn't give specific explanations in the conclusion?

Thanks!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi heartofsunshine,

That's exactly right! If answer choice B were right, the argument would need to include an explanation (a reason why, or a "because" statement) shedding light on what causes the arguments trying to establish the superiority of monarchies to be construed as evidence that mechanism is in tension with democracy. Why did people think that way? The argument doesn't tell us. Thus, answer choice B cannot be correct.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy