Hi, thanks for your post. This question asks us to identify a principle that would most strengthen the argument presented in the stimulus. So let's start by reviewing the stimulus carefully.
The historian states the following: P: The ancient regime of Q was made up primarily of ordinary people enthusiastically seeking paradise. P: The regime executed many people in pursuit of its goal. P: It later became clear that paradise, as the ancient regime of Q defined it, is unrealizable. C: So, at least some of the ordinary people of Q were in fact murderers.
This is a weak argument, insofar as it jumps from establishing a group of primarily ordinary people seeking paradise to the conclusion that at least some of these ordinary people were, in fact, murderers.
Answer choice (C) strengthens the argument: Execution [of other people] in pursuit of what is later found to be unattainable [paradise] constitutes murder.
If this is true, then yes, at least some of the ordinary people of Q, who participated in execution of others to achieve paradise, are murderers by virtue of the fact that paradise turned out to be unrealizable.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any additional questions.
Julie-VAugust 20, 2019
can you explain the flaw in answer choice (A)? Thanks!
RaviAugust 20, 2019
@Julie-V,
Let's look at (A).
(A) says, "The pursuit of paradise does not justify murder."
The problem with (A) is that it doesn't help us to conclude that the people of Q were murderers; rather, (A) would allow us to conclude that the people of Q didn't have justification to murder based only on their pursuit of paradise. The conclusion calls what they did murder, but there's no information about whether or not it's justified. Thus, we can get rid of (A).
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!
