Q15 - Some food historians conclude that recipes

[Laura Damone]

Question Type:
Procedure

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: the conclusion that Apicius's recipes reflect how rich Romans ate is too hasty. Premises: Few other recipes from ancient Rome survived, and Amicius's recipes might have been atypical, just like the recipes of lots of modern chefs.

Answer Anticipation:
Procedure questions often test one of a few common argument structures and this seems to be no exception. This is an argument supported by an analogy. Modern chefs are held up as analagous to ancient Roman ones. If we can't judge the modern diet of a group or place by the recipes of one chef, the logic goes, we shouldn't judge the diet of rich Romans by the recipes of Apicius.

Correct answer:
C

Answer choice analysis:
(A) If this sounds to you like the Unproven vs. Untrue flaw, well done! That's what this answer describes, and that's not a flaw the argument exhibits because it provides independent evidence (the analogy of modern chefs) to reject the view of some historians.

(B) Like many procedure questions, this one has an argument that refutes an opposing point. So, when answer choice B says it supports a view held by some historians, we know it’s the wrong answer. The second half of the answer might make it tempting because it raises the issue of the modern analogue. However, upon close inspection, B says there is a modern analogue to the view that is supported. But the view is already a modern view; it's what historians today think. That makes a flavor of the language match trap: inserting language we predict into a right answer to make a wrong answer more tempting.

(C) Correct. This answer also raises the issue of the modern analogue, but in a more accurate way. First, it correctly identifies this as a refutation of the view of some food historians. Second, it correctly describes the analogy as one that supposedly weakens the opposing argument.

(D) Another language match trap! But this conclusion isn't about a modern analogue: it's drawn based on a modern analogue. And it doesn't use a conclusion drawn by some food historians: it refutes it.

(E) Yet another language match trap! But this conclusion isn't about the similarity of historic times to modern times. It uses the supposed similarity to draw it's conclusion, but the conclusion isn't explicitly about that similarity. This one also fails to acknowledge that the argument is a refutation.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Procedure arguments often follow one of a few standard patterns: applying a general principle to a specific case, using an example to support a general principle, reduction to the absurd and argument by analogy. If you can spot one of these standard structures, you've got a solid prediction. But watch out! Answer choices might use the language of the structure you've identified in ways that still aren't correct. You also need to know whether your argument is a refutation or not. If it is, that needs to be reflected in the correct answer.

#officialexplanation

[MarianaG293]

I am still having a hard time eliminating A. To me it sounds like the author is using the premise that few other recipes from Rome have survived as a point to prove that the conclusion is wrong, hence it is an unproven vs. untrue flaw. The author thinks that there is too little evidence, so it can't be true.

Is the problem with answer choice A the word "only"? For instance, if the answer read "it rejects the view PARTLY on the ground that there is insufficient evidence....." and thus partly on the grounds of the modern analogy as well, would that be a better answer?

I guess I am just having a hard time seeing why this is mainly an argument depending on the analogy. To me it seems like the analogy and the unproven vs untrue both play an important role in the argument. If you cut off the last sentence of the argument, it would be pretty clearly an argument based on unproven vs untrue.


Thanks in advance

[Misti Duvall]

I am still having a hard time eliminating A. To me it sounds like the author is using the premise that few other recipes from Rome have survived as a point to prove that the conclusion is wrong, hence it is an unproven vs. untrue flaw. The author thinks that there is too little evidence, so it can't be true.

Is the problem with answer choice A the word "only"? For instance, if the answer read "it rejects the view PARTLY on the ground that there is insufficient evidence....." and thus partly on the grounds of the modern analogy as well, would that be a better answer?

I guess I am just having a hard time seeing why this is mainly an argument depending on the analogy. To me it seems like the analogy and the unproven vs untrue both play an important role in the argument. If you cut off the last sentence of the argument, it would be pretty clearly an argument based on unproven vs untrue.


Thanks in advance

I agree (A) would be easier to support if it said partly instead of only. And also if you cut off the last sentence of the argument. But if you're cutting out parts of the argument to make an answer work, it's definitely not the correct answer.