Verbal 2017 - CR # 158: Most scholars agree that King Alfred

RBBmba@2014 wrote: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 [spoiler]C & E[/spoiler] ?

Conclusion: Alfred personally penned his own law code.
Premise: There are more similarities than differences between Alfred's Latin translations and his law code.
Assumption: If there are more similarities than differences between two pieces of writing, then the same author produced both.

This assumption turns out to be questionable. Similarities don't necessarily entail one author. It could be the case that all the writing at this time contained similar features. This notion is captured in B.

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 [spoiler]C & E[/spoiler] ? (it seems to me they're close to the LOGIC of the PASSAGE)

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 [spoiler]C & E[/spoiler] ? (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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.