#12 - Specific Reference, Must Be True, Subject Perspective

[blade21cn]

I got this question wrong and am wondering if anyone can validate the thinking process. This question looks to me as a detail information question, specifically inference from a detail, even though the question stem uses the word "assumes (assumption)." The quoted sentence is: "[Aeschylean] drama is proof of the emergence within ancient Greek civilization of the individual as a free agent."

(A) is wrong because "introduced new ways of understanding" is too much of a jump from "proof of the emergence," as the proof might not be new/first one. It's just corroborating a phenomenon that already existed, though that phenomenon itself may be new - "emergence." Also, "helped to initiate" indicates a causal relationship, while the passage talks more of a passive sort of documenting function as "proof." Lastly, "a new understanding of the person" is too vague, as the passage is specifically about individual autonomy.

(B) has the same issue as (A) - "introduced new ways of understanding."

(C) has the same issue as (A) and (B), as it states "the original source of the understanding," which indicates it's the first one. In addition, what's "most familiar to the modern Western world" is not supported by the passage.

(D) "Accurately reflects the way personal autonomy was perceived" correlates with "proof of," without modifying it as new/the first one. However, I'm struggling with "the way personal autonomy was perceived in Ancient Greek society." In other words, I think the sentence talks about the emergence of personal autonomy as a new phenomenon itself. It's still different from saying it's about how personal autonomy is perceived, or received, by the society. That'll be a discussion about whether people accept it, criticize it, etc., which is clearly not the case here.

(E) The passage talks about "ancient Greek civilization." There's no mentioning of "the modern Western world."

Thanks!

[Paul Marsh]

Hi blade21cn! Very nice job breaking down the problem in your post. Since there's nothing posted yet let's go ahead and do a full walk-through of this one.

This question asks us about what assumption of Barbu is suggested by the quote in lines 21-23. As always with these Local Reference questions, we want to take a second look at those lines, as well as what comes a bit before and after them. We know that Barbu is not mentioned anywhere else, so our answer is just going to be based on what's in that area of the passage. The quote from Barbu is that "[Aeschylean] drama is proof of the emergence within ancient Greek civilization of the individual as a free agent." As always, before jumping to the answer choices we want to take a second to Pre-Phrase. The assumption that jumps out at me is that within Greece, at the time of Aeschlyean drama there already existed some concept of the individual as a free agent. So we want to look for an answer choice that discusses that.

Answer Choice (A). This is in direct opposition to our Pre-Phrase. We're looking for something that discusses how there already existed some concept of the individual as free. (A) instead says that Aeschlyean drama was to some degree the genesis of the idea ("initiate a new way of understanding").

Answer Choice (B). Incorrect for the same reason as Answer Choice (A) - it contradicts our Pre-Phrase and holds up Aeschlyean drama as the start of the idea of individual freedom ("introduced new ways of understanding").

Answer Choice (C). Incorrect for the same reason as Answer Choices (A) and (B) ("original source of the understanding").

Answer Choice (D). This is the correct answer. It isn't a perfect match for our Pre-Phrase, but it touches on what we were looking for - that the notion of individual free choice already existed at the time of Aeschlyean drama.

Answer Choice (E). Out of scope. There is nothing in Barbu's quote (or indeed, the passage at all) that discusses the modern Western world. Nothing about Barbu's quote suggests that he assumes this.

Hope that helps!

[blade21cn]

Thanks for the prompt reply, Paul! Just a quick followup - I like the idea of prephrasing and yours is: "at the time of Aeschylean drama there already existed some concept of the individual as a free agent." But this is just a restatement of the quote itself - "the emergence within Ancient Greek civilization of the individual as a free agent." Since assumption, by definition, is unstated, this is the exact reason we can't choose this stated fact as something anyone assumes. I've a hunch it has to do with the subtle difference between something already existed and how it was perceived by others, but I just can't figure out exactly what it is. Really tough question.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi blade,

A couple comments on your excellent follow-up!

First, it's not quite accurate to say that an "assumption" in a general sense must be something that's unstated. In fact, there are certain questions where LSAC makes clear that the term "assumption" can cover both stated premises and unstated premises. Take a look at October 1993 (PT 9), LR1, question 20, answer choice C, a Method of Reasoning (Argument Part) question, which refers to an "explicit assumption" (i.e., a "premise").

Second, and notwithstanding the above, in this case I agree that the answer choice is not likely to be an explicit assumption, since only one sentence of Barbu is quoted. But I don't actually agree that what Paul prephrased as an assumption is just a restatement of Barbu. What Barbu states is that Aeschylean drama shows how the individual as free agent existed in Greek civilization. What Paul prephrases is that there was already (prior to the dramas Aeschylus wrote) a concept of an individual as free agent. These are certainly closely related notions. But not quite the same.

Third (and most importantly), I think you're both right that answer choice D isn't a perfect match for the prephrase. However, it is close. Use the assumption negation technique on answer choice D. What if "Aeschylean drama did NOT accurately reflect the way personal autonomy was perceived in ancient Greek society?" That would be a problem for Barbu's statement, especially the portion of the statement that refers to the "emergence within ancient Greek civilization of the individual as a free agent," which means that the civilization itself had individuals who were in fact free agents. If personal autonomy were not perceived the same way as Aeschylus depicted it in his dramas, then we wouldn't be able to use those dramas as evidence that individual free agents were in fact present in the civilization.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy

[blade21cn]

Thanks for your input, Jeremy! Hmm ... just a few comments.

First, "explicit assumption" is an incorrect answer choice in PT9, S1, Q19, and, in my opinion, an oxymoron, as LSAC often throws out non-sense words to confuse us. So I don't think that serves as support that LSAC endorses a concept of "stated assumption."

Second, what Paul prephrased, and specifically with use of the word "concept" of an individual as a free agent is neither from the passage nor from this question. So it's unfruitful to hinge our discussion on that.

Third, you applied the negation technique and argued "if personal autonomy were not perceived the same way as Aeschylus depicted it in his dramas, then we wouldn't be able to use those dramas as evidence that individual free agents were in fact present in the civilization." But wouldn't that be "opinion v. fact" fallacy? What people perceive is not necessarily true about what actually exists.

Sorry for splitting hairs here, but you guys rock!

[Jeremy Press]

Hi blade,

No problem, this stuff is fun for us! I do have a couple ongoing quibbles that are less important (and I hope you’ll indulge me in them anyway!) and a more interesting reflection on the substance of the question.

While you’re right that the answer choice I flagged is an incorrect answer choice on that test, the reason it’s incorrect is not that the phrase “explicit assumption” is an oxymoron. Think of it this way: do I (as the master of my argument) have to keep everything that’s necessary to my conclusion hidden? Not necessarily. I could state explicitly the things I’m assuming that are necessary to my conclusion’s validity. So an explicit assumption is, quite simply, an open statement of what is necessary for my conclusion (i.e. a foundation of the argument laid bare for the reader to see).

I also don’t think the discussion here hinges on the prephrase. Prephrases are just educated guesses anyway, and we don’t always have perfect ones. I was just pointing out that Paul’s prephrase did not actually mean something identical to the claim in the passage (which, I think, is accurate—but feel free to correct me if you see it differently).

Finally (and again, most importantly), you’re right that opinion doesn’t equal fact, and I should’ve fleshed out my thinking more. I think there’s something deeper at work here. Perception of personal autonomy affects how someone embodies freedom (concretely). You might conceive of a story or picture of a free agent, but if I conceive of my agency and freedom differently than that picture, you can’t really use me as evidence of your idea of what a free agent is. Because I’ll be embodying a different kind of freedom. So, if the Greeks did not see themselves as free in the Aeschylean sense, they wouldn’t embody Aeschylean free agency, and we couldn’t use Aeschylus’s dramas as proof of their free agency. Tough question, I’ll admit. And good discussion. Thanks again!

Jeremy

[jacobwasinger]

Hi blade21cn! Very nice job breaking down the problem in your post. Since there's nothing posted yet let's go ahead and do a full walk-through of this one.

This question asks us about what assumption of Barbu is suggested by the quote in lines 21-23. As always with these Local Reference questions, we want to take a second look at those lines, as well as what comes a bit before and after them. We know that Barbu is not mentioned anywhere else, so our answer is just going to be based on what's in that area of the passage. The quote from Barbu is that "[Aeschylean] drama is proof of the emergence within ancient Greek civilization of the individual as a free agent." As always, before jumping to the answer choices we want to take a second to Pre-Phrase. The assumption that jumps out at me is that within Greece, at the time of Aeschlyean drama there already existed some concept of the individual as a free agent. So we want to look for an answer choice that discusses that.

Answer Choice (A). This is in direct opposition to our Pre-Phrase. We're looking for something that discusses how there already existed some concept of the individual as free. (A) instead says that Aeschlyean drama was to some degree the genesis of the idea ("initiate a new way of understanding").

Answer Choice (B). Incorrect for the same reason as Answer Choice (A) - it contradicts our Pre-Phrase and holds up Aeschlyean drama as the start of the idea of individual freedom ("introduced new ways of understanding").

Answer Choice (C). Incorrect for the same reason as Answer Choices (A) and (B) ("original source of the understanding").

Answer Choice (D). This is the correct answer. It isn't a perfect match for our Pre-Phrase, but it touches on what we were looking for - that the notion of individual free choice already existed at the time of Aeschlyean drama.

Answer Choice (E). Out of scope. There is nothing in Barbu's quote (or indeed, the passage at all) that discusses the modern Western world. Nothing about Barbu's quote suggests that he assumes this.

Hope that helps!

Hello! Having a little trouble with this one. The quote states that the drama "is proof of the emergence..." Does that not mean that the Ancient Greeks did not already have this notion of individuals as free agents? If the Greeks already had this notion, then the drama wouldn't be proof of an emergence, it would just be proof that it exists already. Let me know if this is answered elsewhere. Thank you!!

[Jeff Wren]

Hi Jacob,

The word "emergence" in the passage definitely gave many people trouble. It does imply that this idea of an individual as a free agent did emerge or develop, perhaps even recently. In other words, the idea wasn't always held by the Ancient Greeks.

The important point, however, is that the emergence has already taken place by the time of the plays, even if recently. The passage is not claiming that the plays created the idea, but rather they are proof that the idea was around at that time.

[jacobwasinger]

Hi Jeff!

Thanks for responding to me on this. Where is the evidence that Ancient Greek Society already had the idea of humans as free agents? It seems consistent with Barbu’s statements that The Greek dramatist actually was the first dramatist to create this idea, whose existence is proof that it exists.

It seems that there’s one interpretation where the Greek dramatist in question is accurately reflecting Ancient Greek society’s views of individuals as free agents, which is more or less widespread, and another where it is the first showing of this idea and whose plays form a significant force in manifesting this idea in Greek society. I’m having difficulties finding textual evidence proving the former is surperior, since most of the first paragraph talk exclusively about
Aeschylus.

Thanks again for responding to me here!! I really appreciate it

[Hanin Abu Amara]

Hi Jacob,

Thank you for your question. So when we're looking at that line, "Aeschylean drama is proof of the emergence within Ancient Greek civilization."

It is important to take words at their surface level. There is nothing indicating to us that Aeschylean drama was the cause of this emergence. Instead the words are saying that it is simply what has show us its existence. It would be overstepping the information given to us to make the assumption that it is the origin of the concept. Aeschylean drama is simply used as an example of facet of Greek drama that sparked that emergence and can't even on its own be attributed to being its origin.

Hope that helps