We know that the ancient Pavonian text states that an army of one million drank a lake dry. We also have archaeological evidence that water-based life was suddenly absent just after the Pavonian event, according to the text, allegedly took place. So, time-wise, the text states that the army drank the lake dry and just after this event was alleged to have occurred, we have evidence that water-based life was suddenly absent. On the basis of this, some students concluded that the events described in the Pavonian text actually took place.
This is exactly where the students in the passage faltered in their reasoning. They saw that the archaeological evidence described an effect (i.e. water-based life was suddenly absent), and therefore concluded that the events in the Pavonian text must have, therefore, been the cause. What error are these students making? Well, just because the effect described in the archaeological evidence is true, does not necessarily make the events alleged to occur in the Pavonian text the true cause of them. Remember that one of the three ways to weaken a cause and effect argument is to show an alternate cause. Couldn't there have been a different cause for the water-based life to have suddenly died off rather than an army of one million drinking an entire lake dry? Thus, from the validity of the archaeological evidence, the students mistakenly conclude that the cause must, therefore, be the Pavonian army drinking the lake dry.
(A) is incorrect because the students have not made a generalization about historical events. Their error is that they are taking the truth of the archaeological evidence, which shows an effect, to prove the actual occurrence of the events in the Pavonian text, which they are surmising to be the cause.
(B) is incorrect because there is no counterevidence in the passage that the students are ignoring.
(C) is incorrect because the students do not reject a hypothesis.
(D) is incorrect because the only people mentioned in the passage are the army of one million and the students do not used the Pavonian text of the army to reach their conclusion. Rather, they use the archaeological evidence to reach their conclusion that the events referred to in the Pavonian text actually occurred. Moreover, we have no idea whether or not modern historians can or cannot substantiate the people and locations mentioned in the Pavonian text.
(E) is the CORRECT answer because it describes exactly what the students do to reach their conclusion. The students' questionable technique in reaching their conclusion is to take the fact that the archaeological evidence has correctly described an effect (i.e. water-based life was suddenly absent), to conclude that the Pavonian text has also correctly described the cause. Just because the archaeological evidence shows an effect, that the Pavonian text events could describe the cause of, does not mean that what was described in the Pavonian texts actually occurred.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any more questions.
KathOctober 29, 2019
I am confused what the "event" refers to. Does it refer to the "river dried" or the "soldier drank the lake"?
