Q14 - The authorship of the Iliad

[rbolden]

Hello,

I am down to A and B and do not see why B is a better answer choice A. Can you explain?

[bbirdwell]

(A) is incorrect because the argument does not suspend judgement. It chooses the side of tradition.

(B) is better because it aligns with the argument's position: that tradition is "correct," due to a lack of evidence otherwise.

[Celeste757]

Hello,

I don't understand why E is incorrect. isn't the argument saying that since there are conflicting hypothesis about the author (homer vs not), we should defer to the traditional view?

I can't quite understand why B is correct - the author is saying there isn't overwhelming evidence for EITHER claim, so we should accept tradition ... (and isnt choice E saying defer to tradition?)

thanks!!!

[bbirdwell]

Conclusion:
we should accept tradition, that Homer is author

Premises:
1. tradition says Homer is author
2. some evidence says he wrote neither
3. no overwhelming evidence for either 1 or 2

(A) incorrect -- judgement has not been suspended here
(B) is a good match. No overwhelming evidence for #2, accept tradition. The fact that there's no overwhelming evidence for #1 either doesn't matter in this case, because it's being accepted in spite of that.
(C) incorrect - #2 has been rejected here.
(D) is way off
(E) is incorrect because we only know of one hyp that conflicts with tradition in this case.

[ccalice21]

I chose C because I assumed the "hypothesis" to denote the tradition.

If the tradition is not firmly established, why can we call it a hypothesis?

I feel I still can't talk myself out of C. Any thought?

The only issue I found in C was "believe", which not necessarily equates "accept the verdict of". Is this reasonable thinking?

Thanks!

[LSAT-Chang]

Conclusion:
we should accept tradition, that Homer is author

Premises:
1. tradition says Homer is author
2. some evidence says he wrote neither
3. no overwhelming evidence for either 1 or 2

(A) incorrect -- judgement has not been suspended here
(B) is a good match. No overwhelming evidence for #2, accept tradition. The fact that there's no overwhelming evidence for #1 either doesn't matter in this case, because it's being accepted in spite of that.
(C) incorrect - #2 has been rejected here.
(D) is way off
(E) is incorrect because we only know of one hyp that conflicts with tradition in this case.

Hi Brian, could you go a little deeper with the explanation for (C)? I chose (C) with confidence because it literally says that if there is no overwhelming evidence for or against a hypothesis (which is exactly the premise), one should believe it (we ought to believe that Homer is the principal author of both works). Did I make an assumption I'm not supposed to? Now that I look at it, I guess I might have assumed myself that the "IT" was referring to the traditional evidence (i.e. Homer as author), when in fact, we do not know what it is referring to...? Is it wrong because it is too vague when the author's conclusion explicitly mentions the "traditional evidence"? Would (C) have been correct if it had said "one should believe the traditional evidence"?

[bbirdwell]

The "it" in question refers to "a hypothesis."

There are two hypotheses presented in the original argument: the first is that Homer created the works, the second is that he didn't.

We also know from the original that there is indeed no overwhelming evidence for either one.

Therefore, (C) would have us conclude that we should believe both hypotheses.

This is clearly not what the original argument concludes. The original concludes that we should accept the first hypothesis and not the other.

Let me know if that clears things up!

[geverett]

Hey Brian,
I chose B b/c I proved the other four wrong, but I feel like our core looks like this

Lack of Overwhelming ----> Accept tradition
evidence for or against

B gives us the criteria for rejection - that which goes against tradition - but the stimulus gives us the criteria for acceptance. Does the denial of the one imply the acceptance of the other?

Thoughts?

[bbirdwell]

Hey man.

The nuance that I would add to your core is this:

no evidence --> accept tradition, reject other

It's not a black and white case of acceptance/rejection. Neither has evidence, yet one is accepted and the other isn't.

That's why the phrase "if it goes against tradition" is important when considering (B). For the non-traditional theory, the argument gives us the criteria for rejection, just as (B) does:
no evidence --> no accept

[geverett]

Thanks Brian! Totally makes sense now!

[hyewonkim89]

The "it" in question refers to "a hypothesis."

There are two hypotheses presented in the original argument: the first is that Homer created the works, the second is that he didn't.

We also know from the original that there is indeed no overwhelming evidence for either one.

Therefore, (C) would have us conclude that we should believe both hypotheses.

This is clearly not what the original argument concludes. The original concludes that we should accept the first hypothesis and not the other.

Let me know if that clears things up!

Hello,

I also picked C really confidently, but it wasn't the right answer!

Your explanation makes it a bit clearer why C isn't the answer. But how does "one should believe it" mean one should believe both hypothesis?

I thought "one should believe it" meant one should be 'for' a hypothesis.

Please clarify!

Thanks!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

But how does "one should believe it" mean one should believe both hypothesis?

There are two hypotheses discussed in the stimulus. Since the principle doesn't specify to which hypothesis it should apply, it would actually apply to both hypotheses: that the Iliad and the Odyssey where both created by Homer; and that he had nothing to do with either work.

We're only asked to support the former hypothesis, but answer choice (C) would support both the former and the latter one.

[hyewonkim89]

Thank you so much Matt for always being so helpful!

[Mab6q]

Hey man.

The nuance that I would add to your core is this:

no evidence --> accept tradition, reject other

It's not a black and white case of acceptance/rejection. Neither has evidence, yet one is accepted and the other isn't.

That's why the phrase "if it goes against tradition" is important when considering (B). For the non-traditional theory, the argument gives us the criteria for rejection, just as (B) does:
no evidence --> no accept

Yes, but I still don't think we can conclude accept the verdict of tradition here. Be definitely gives us a necessary conclusion, but I'm having doubts as to whether or not it is sufficient, which beings me to my question regarding the nature of this question. Isn't this really asking for a principle that is necessary for the conclusion to be drawn? Underlying the conclusion, seems like necessary language to me. In any case, would we still look at B as sufficient?

[maryadkins]

I would not interpret this question as asking for a necessary principle. I don't think it's that specific.

That said, I agree that (B) isn't sufficient. (B) doesn't give us grounds to accept the alternative theory. But it is necessary, yes.

(B) is correct not because this question is asking for a necessary principle as opposed to a sufficient one, but because it is asking for the most accurate statement of an underlying principle (whether it be sufficient or not), and (B) is the best articulation of that.