Q14 - Seventeenth-century proponents of the philosophical

[ohthatpatrick]

What does the Question Stem tell us?
Determine the Function

Break down the Stimulus:
Conclusion: The proliferation of arguments that say mechanism favors monarchies is NOT showing that mechanism goes against democracy.
Evidence: A better explanation for that proliferation of arguments is simply that mechanism DOES work with democracy, and since 17th century dudes were trying to use mechanism to show monarchies were better, they kept writing crappy arguments that didn't hold up to scrutiny, leading to rewrite after rewrite.

Any prephrase?
They are asking us about the Opposing Conclusion. If we're having trouble understanding this tough topic, we should still know that this ingredient is in opposition to the author, since the author counters it with "But".

The author's unnamed opponent is concluding that a philosophical tension between democracy and mechanism explain why there were numerous 17th century arguments favoring monarchy over democracy.

The author is saying that there is NOT a philosophical tension between democracy and mechanism, and THAT explains why 17th century arguments that mechanism favors monarchy over democracy had to be re-written numerous times.

Correct answer:
C

Answer choice analysis:
A) It is an idea the author opposes, not one it seeks to establish.

B) The argument seeks to counter this idea, not to explain it.

C) Yes, the author is challenging this idea.

D) This is what our author opposes, not the support for her argument.

E) This is what our author opposes, not her conclusion.

Takeaway/Pattern: "Hypothesis", for those wondering, generically means an idea that's offering an explanation for, or interpretation of, some phenomenon. The second sentence said that "This [phenomenon] has been construed as evidence that [interpretation of evidence]." In other words, people are looking at X and hypothesizing that it was caused by Y.

#officialexplanation

[ganbayou]

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?

[seychelles1718]

So is the main conclusion of the argument rather implied? Then does that mean the last sentence ("But..") is actually the premise of the argument, not the conclusion?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, the conclusion is implied.

It's kinda like if I said:
Lots of people think Kobe is the best player of the past 20 years. But Lebron has better stats in every category.

IMPLIED CONCLUSION:
Kobe isn't the best of the past 20

EVIDENCE:
Lebron has better stats in every category

-----------------------------

When two ideas are joined with "and", you can tell they are both premises. They function in parallel to achieve something.

So the pair of ideas in the final sentence are evidence for an alternative interpretation of why there are so many arguments trying to use mechanism to prove monarchy.

The author's argument is essentially,
"[some people interpret these numerous arguments to mean Y]. But I disagree with that interpretation. After all, I find this other interpretation more likely."

-------------------------------

You can tell that something like "the principles of mechanism support democracy" isn't a conclusion because there is no support provided for that idea. The author doesn't give us a reason why we should believe that 'mechanism supports democracy'.