Most scholars agree that King Alfred (A.D 849 - 899) personally translated a number of Latin texts into Old English....

GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions

Source: Official Guide

Critical Reasoning

Misc.

HARD

...

Notes

Post a Query

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 outweighed 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 translation 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

Providing examples that underscore another argument's conclusion.

questioning the plausibility of an assumption on which another argument depends.

showing that a principle if generally applied would have anomalous consequences.

showing that the premises of another argument are mutually inconsistent.

using argument by analogy to undermine a principle implicit in another argument.

Solution

Passage Analysis:

Text from Passage	Analysis
Most scholars agree that King Alfred (A.D 849 - 899) personally translated a number of Latin texts into Old English.	What it says: Scholars mostly think Alfred translated Latin texts himself What it does: Sets up background info about what's generally accepted about Alfred What it is: Scholarly consensus
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 outweighed by the even more numerous similarities.	What it says: A historian claims Alfred wrote his law code too, based on language similarities outweighing differences What it does: Introduces a specific claim that goes beyond the accepted view What it is: Historian's argument Visualization: Differences: 20 vs Similarities: 60+ (similarities win)
Linguistic similarities, however, are what one expects in texts from the same language, the same time, and the same region.	What it says: Similar language features are normal for texts from same place and time What it does: Challenges the historian's reasoning by showing similarities might be coincidental What it is: Author's counterpoint
Apart from Alfred's surviving translation 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.	What it says: We have very few texts from that time and place, making similarity-based conclusions unreliable What it does: Strengthens the challenge by showing we lack enough comparison material What it is: Author's conclusion Visualization: Total texts available: Alfred's translation + law code + 2 others = 4 texts (tiny sample)

Argument Flow:

The passage starts with accepted facts, presents a historian's claim, then systematically dismantles that claim by showing why the evidence isn't reliable.

Main Conclusion:

We can't trust linguistic similarities to prove Alfred wrote the law code because we don't have enough texts from that time period to make a reliable comparison.

Logical Structure:

The author uses a 'sounds reasonable but actually isn't' structure - acknowledging that similarities exist but showing why they don't prove authorship when we have such a small sample of texts to compare.

Prethinking:

Question type:

Misc - Method of Reasoning question asking how the passage proceeds/is structured

Precision of Claims

The passage involves specific scholarly claims about authorship, linguistic evidence (similarities vs differences), and sample size limitations (only 4 total texts available)

Strategy

For method of reasoning questions, we need to identify the logical flow and structure of how the author makes their argument. We should trace: 1) What position is being challenged, 2) How the challenge is made, 3) What reasoning technique is used. The passage presents a historian's claim, then systematically undermines it by showing the evidence is unreliable due to context and limited sample size.

Answer Choices Explained

Providing examples that underscore another argument's conclusion.

This is incorrect because the passage doesn't provide examples that support the historian's conclusion. Instead, it challenges the historian's reasoning about linguistic similarities pointing to common authorship.

questioning the plausibility of an assumption on which another argument depends.

This is correct. The historian's argument assumes that linguistic similarities indicate common authorship. The passage questions this assumption by showing that: similarities are normal for texts from the same time/place/language, and with only 4 total texts available, we can't reliably conclude authorship from similarities.

showing that a principle if generally applied would have anomalous consequences.

This is incorrect because the passage doesn't discuss what would happen if we applied the historian's reasoning more broadly. It focuses specifically on why the reasoning fails in this particular case due to limited sample size.

showing that the premises of another argument are mutually inconsistent.

This is incorrect because the passage doesn't point out internal contradictions in the historian's argument. The historian's premises aren't contradictory - the passage questions whether the evidence actually supports the conclusion.

using argument by analogy to undermine a principle implicit in another argument.

This is incorrect because the passage doesn't use analogies. It directly addresses the logical problems with using linguistic similarities as evidence when we have such a small sample of texts to compare.

Rate this Solution

Tell us what you think about this solution

...

Forum Discussions

Start a new discussion

Post

Previous Attempts

Loading attempts...