#24 - It is now clear that the ancient Egyptians were the

[tanushreebansal]

Hi! I'm not sure I understand why D is the correct answer for this question. D seems to imply that there could be evidence of alcohol in Egyptian society dating even earlier than 2000 BC. This wouldn't be a flaw, then, because her conclusion would still stand, so it's not as if the author overlooked a possibility that could damage her argument- D's possibility would not damaged her argument, would it?

[nicholaspavic]

Hi Tanuush!

Great question. In this question, Answer (D) isn't just suggesting that the Egyptian society could have been the ones to create beer. In fact, the answer is suggesting that anybody in the entire world could have made the beer in the first instance and that the Egyptian cup evidence is just the first evidence of a known instance. So, Mesopotamians, Sumerians, etc. all could have potentially made beer before the Egyptians which is what Answer (D) is driving at. Thanks for the great question!

[tanushreebansal]

That was super helpful- thank you!

Hi Tanuush!

Great question. In this question, Answer (D) isn't just suggesting that the Egyptian society could have been the ones to create beer. In fact, the answer is suggesting that anybody in the entire world could have made the beer in the first instance and that the Egyptian cup evidence is just the first evidence of a known instance. So, Mesopotamians, Sumerians, etc. all could have potentially made beer before the Egyptians which is what Answer (D) is driving at. Thanks for the great question!

[lilmissunshine]

Hello,

I picked (D) initially but could you explain why (A) is incorrect? Can one cup represents the entire Egyptian society?

Many thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The problem with the argument is not that the cup is an unrepresentative sample, lilmissunshine. One piece of evidence can be enough to prove or disprove a claim, depending on what that evidence is. If the cup is as old as they claim and does depict a brewery, it is pretty strong evidence that the Egyptians at that time knew something about brewing! (The residue is less convincing, because that old cup could have been used to hoist a brew or two a thousand years after it was made).

The real problem here is that the evidence only suggests that the Egyptians were perhaps making alcoholic beverages earlier than we had previously known anyone did. That isn't proof that they were the earliest to do so! That's a type of relativity flaw - one thing being before another doesn't prove that it was the first thing. Earlier doesn't prove earliest; faster doesn't prove fastest; taller doesn't prove tallest, etc.

[cloudysundae]

The problem with the argument is not that the cup is an unrepresentative sample, lilmissunshine. One piece of evidence can be enough to prove or disprove a claim, depending on what that evidence is. If the cup is as old as they claim and does depict a brewery, it is pretty strong evidence that the Egyptians at that time knew something about brewing! (The residue is less convincing, because that old cup could have been used to hoist a brew or two a thousand years after it was made).

The real problem here is that the evidence only suggests that the Egyptians were perhaps making alcoholic beverages earlier than we had previously known anyone did. That isn't proof that they were the earliest to do so! That's a type of relativity flaw - one thing being before another doesn't prove that it was the first thing. Earlier doesn't prove earliest; faster doesn't prove fastest; taller doesn't prove tallest, etc.

Hello, although I fully agree with the last part regarding the relativity flaw at a general level, I am confused as to how it is directly applicable to this stimulus. The stimulus clearly provides that "the ancient Babylonians were the first [in the world]" prior to the discovery of the Egyptian cup. Meaning, if we prove sth to be earlier than the Babylonians, doesn't that make that the "first in the world"? If the stimulus did NOT mention the Babylonians to be "the first", but merely mastered "as early as 1500 B.C." I wouldn't be as confused.

Although I agree with every other choice excluding (D) being wrong, I cannot seem to fully accept (D). Please let me know if I'm going off track.

Thank you in advance.

[Adam Tyson]

Every word matters, cloudysundae, and you have left out some crucial words in your quote from the stimulus. The full line is "It had been thought that the ancient Babylonians were the first" (emphasis added). Not they they WERE the first, but that we THOUGHT they were the first. Based on the stimulus, we could say that we now THINK the Egyptians were the first, but the author takes the evidence too far and says it is now clear that they were the first. Therein lies one way to describe the flaw - treating a possibility as if it is certain.

Possibility, and even probability, are not strong enough to prove certainty!

[jrschultz14]

Hi, while I was reading the stimulus, I was drawn to a few flaws, and one of them had to do with the fact that we are talking about "alcoholic beverages" in the conclusion, but then talk about "beer" and "wine" in the premises. Couldn't that be considered an equivication fallacy? For example, just because the Babylonians mastered the art of making WINE in early 1500 BC, doesn't mean they couldn't have mastered the art of making some other alcoholic beverage earlier, say vodka in 2100 BC.

Given this thought, I was drawn to AC B -- could you please describe why this is incorrect? I assume that for it to be correct, the AC would have focused more on the "concept" of alcoholic beverages, as opposed to "term"? The difference between equivication on terms and equivication on concepts can be a bit confusing. Thanks!

[Robert Carroll]

jr,

There's no equivocation fallacy here. Beer and wine are kinds of alcoholic beverages, so if the author is trying to make a point about who made alcoholic beverages first, the author can certainly use certain kinds of alcoholic beverages to make that point. As you point out, it's possible that one civilization was the first to make wine, but another made some other type of beverage before that, so the first to make wine isn't necessarily the first to make alcohol, nor is the first to make beer the first to make alcohol, etc. But beer, wine, etc. are types of alcoholic beverages, so there is certainly no shift in meaning there. The author is not really saying "They were the first to make wine, so there are the first to make alcoholic beverages" where the author suddenly ignores all other potential alcoholic beverages. Instead, the author hasn't even proven that any civilization was the first to make beer, wine, etc. Instead, the author thinks that the first known was the first in actuality, which is the knowledge flaw identified in answer choice (D).

Robert Carroll

[ashpine17]

I misread the conclusion as stating that most members of egyptian society consumed alcohol...if that were what the conclusion stated, would this be an overgeneralization flaw?