• Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
Register now and save up to $200 Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Get 300+ Practice Questions 25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • 5-Day Free Trial 5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • 1 Hour Free BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Free Trial & Practice Exam BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Free Practice Test & Review How would you score if you took the GMAT Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • 5 Day FREE Trial Study Smarter, Not Harder Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Magoosh Study with Magoosh GMAT prep Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Free Veritas GMAT Class Experience Lesson 1 Live Free Available with Beat the GMAT members only code ## Verbal 2017 - CR # 158: Most scholars agree that King Alfred tagged by: RBBmba@2014 This topic has 5 expert replies and 3 member replies RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member Joined 30 May 2012 Posted: 889 messages Followed by: 4 members Upvotes: 8 #### Verbal 2017 - CR # 158: Most scholars agree that King Alfred Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:24 am Most scholars agree that King Alfred (A.D 849 - 899) personally translated a number of Latin texts into Old English. One historian contends that Alfred also personally penned his own law code, arguing that the numerous differences between the language of the law code and Alfred's translation of Latin texts are overweighted by the even more numerous similarities. Linguistic similarities, however, are what one expects in texts from the same language, the same time, and the same region. Apart from Alfred's surviving trasnlation and law code, there are only two other extant works from the same dialect and milieu, so it is risky to assume here that linguistic similarities point to common authorship. The passage above proceeds by : (A) Providing examples that underscore another argument's conclusion. (B) questioning the plausibility of an assumption on which another argument depends. (C) showing that a principle if generally applied would have anomalous consequences. (D) showing that the premises of another argument are mutually inconsistent. (E) using argument by analogy to undermine a principle implicit in another argument. OA: B @Verbal Experts: Can you please share your detail analysis for this CR ? Also, please share your thoughts on the reasons to eliminate Option C & E ? Last edited by RBBmba@2014 on Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:33 pm; edited 1 time in total Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums! ### GMAT/MBA Expert DavidG@VeritasPrep Legendary Member Joined 14 Jan 2015 Posted: 2459 messages Followed by: 115 members Upvotes: 1153 GMAT Score: 770 Top Reply Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:59 am Quote: Why can't we say that what one historian contends/concludes is an ANOMALOUS CONSEQUENCE because it deviates from the standard norm that Linguistic similarities are what one expects in texts from the same language, the same time, and the same region Even if we argue that the historian's belief is anomalous, rather than, say, misguided, or just unfounded, (why would it be anomalous to believe the same author composed two different texts?) it certainly isn't a consequence of the application of the principle that all texts of a given period have features in common. In other words, the notion that texts of a given time period have similar linguistic features didn't lead to the historian's belief that King Alfred penned his own law code. The historian seems to have arrived at this conclusion on his own, and this conclusion is then undermined by the notion that all works of a given period will have common elements, as the linguistic similarity appears to be the only evidence he has for his contention. _________________ Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor Veritas Prep Reviews Save$100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

Thanked by: RBBmba@2014
Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!

### GMAT/MBA Expert

DavidG@VeritasPrep Legendary Member
Joined
14 Jan 2015
Posted:
2459 messages
Followed by:
115 members
1153
GMAT Score:
770
Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:01 am
Quote:
I think, another reason to eliminate E could be that there is NO implicit principle in the Historian's argument. The principle/inference Historian makes -- two linguistic works are done by same author because of more similarities than differences between them -- is EXPLICIT.
Seems logical to me.

_________________
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course Thanked by: RBBmba@2014 Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now! ### GMAT/MBA Expert DavidG@VeritasPrep Legendary Member Joined 14 Jan 2015 Posted: 2459 messages Followed by: 115 members Upvotes: 1153 GMAT Score: 770 Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:59 am Quote: Why can't we say that what one historian contends/concludes is an ANOMALOUS CONSEQUENCE because it deviates from the standard norm that Linguistic similarities are what one expects in texts from the same language, the same time, and the same region Even if we argue that the historian's belief is anomalous, rather than, say, misguided, or just unfounded, (why would it be anomalous to believe the same author composed two different texts?) it certainly isn't a consequence of the application of the principle that all texts of a given period have features in common. In other words, the notion that texts of a given time period have similar linguistic features didn't lead to the historian's belief that King Alfred penned his own law code. The historian seems to have arrived at this conclusion on his own, and this conclusion is then undermined by the notion that all works of a given period will have common elements, as the linguistic similarity appears to be the only evidence he has for his contention. _________________ Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor Veritas Prep Reviews Save$100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

Thanked by: RBBmba@2014
Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!

### GMAT/MBA Expert

DavidG@VeritasPrep Legendary Member
Joined
14 Jan 2015
Posted:
2459 messages
Followed by:
115 members
1153
GMAT Score:
770
Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:01 am
Quote:
I think, another reason to eliminate E could be that there is NO implicit principle in the Historian's argument. The principle/inference Historian makes -- two linguistic works are done by same author because of more similarities than differences between them -- is EXPLICIT.
Seems logical to me.

_________________
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course Thanked by: RBBmba@2014 Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now! ### GMAT/MBA Expert DavidG@VeritasPrep Legendary Member Joined 14 Jan 2015 Posted: 2459 messages Followed by: 115 members Upvotes: 1153 GMAT Score: 770 Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:02 am RBBmba@2014 wrote: RBBmba@2014 wrote: Also, I think, we can promptly be sure of the Option B as the OA because of this phrase in the CONCLUSION of the PASSAGE -- "so it is risky to assume". Isn't so ? Dave - (just wanna reconfirm that I understood your reply properly) the above approach to pin the OA is correct. Right ? Correct. _________________ Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor Veritas Prep Reviews Save$100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

Thanked by: RBBmba@2014
Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!
RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2012
Posted:
889 messages
Followed by:
4 members
8
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:58 am
RBBmba@2014 wrote:
Also, I think, we can promptly be sure of the Option B as the OA because of this phrase in the CONCLUSION of the PASSAGE -- "so it is risky to assume". Isn't so ?
Dave - (just wanna reconfirm that I understood your reply properly) the above approach to pin the OA is correct. Right ?

RBBmba@2014 Legendary Member
Joined
30 May 2012
Posted:
889 messages
Followed by:
4 members
8
Sat Jul 01, 2017 3:54 am
DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
C: showing that a principle if generally applied would have anomalous consequences.
Anomalous means "deviating from the norm." There's no anomalous consequences here. Just a problematic assumption that leads to a questionable conclusion.
Why can't we say that what one historian contends/concludes is an ANOMALOUS CONSEQUENCE because it deviates from the standard norm that Linguistic similarities are what one expects in texts from the same language, the same time, and the same region

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:
E: using argument by analogy to undermine a principle implicit in another argument. There's no analogy here. The language analysis isn't compared to some other similar phenomenon.
I think, another reason to eliminate E could be that there is NO implicit principle in the Historian's argument. The principle/inference Historian makes -- two linguistic works are done by same author because of more similarities than differences between them -- is EXPLICIT.

### GMAT/MBA Expert

DavidG@VeritasPrep Legendary Member
Joined
14 Jan 2015
Posted:
2459 messages
Followed by:
115 members
1153
GMAT Score:
770
Thu Jun 29, 2017 7:38 am
RBBmba@2014 wrote:
Hi Dave,
I get you here.
Also, I think, we can promptly be sure of the Option B as the OA because of this phrase in the CONCLUSION of the PASSAGE -- "so it is risky to assume". Isn't so ?

However, could you please share your thoughts on the EXACT reasons to eliminate Option C & E ? (it seems to me they're close to the LOGIC of the PASSAGE)
Sure.

C: showing that a principle if generally applied would have anomalous consequences.
Anomalous means "deviating from the norm." There's no anomalous consequences here. Just a problematic assumption that leads to a questionable conclusion.

E: using argument by analogy to undermine a principle implicit in another argument. There's no analogy here. The language analysis isn't compared to some other similar phenomenon.

_________________
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save \$100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course

Thanked by: RBBmba@2014
Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now!

### Best Conversation Starters

1 lheiannie07 116 topics
2 LUANDATO 67 topics
3 swerve 66 topics
4 ardz24 61 topics
5 AAPL 59 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

### Most Active Experts

1 Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

213 posts
2 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

177 posts
3 Jeff@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

168 posts
4 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

EMPOWERgmat

133 posts
5 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

126 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts