The case of the French Revolution is typically regarded as the best evidence for the claim that societies can reap mo...

Naz May 6, 2014

Let's break down the answer choice:

"Opposing a claim by undermining evidence offered in support of that claim."

The argument is opposing the claim that "societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution."

It opposes this claim by undermining evidence offered in support of the claim. The evidence it undermines is that "the French Revolution is typically regarded as the best evidence for the claim."

The argument undermines this evidence by pointing out that the French Revolution had a unique advantage: "Despite the Revolution, the same civil servants and functionaries remained in office, carrying on the day-to-day work of government, and thus many of the disruptions that revolutions normally bring were avoided."

Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any questions.

Tony December 13, 2018

very helpful

Ravi December 16, 2018

@melissakaijukags happy that Naz's answer was helpful! Let us know if you would like any more clarification.

ChristianJM April 1, 2020

Why not A?

bcross June 20, 2020

So, is the point the argument is trying to make is that the French Revolution isn't a good example because there wasn't an opportunity for there to be more benefits than harm since the French has the previously mentioned advantage?

shunhe June 29, 2020

Hi @ChristianJM and @bcross,

Thanks for the questions! So let me get to “why not A” first. (A) tells us that there are internal inconsistencies in the claim argued against (and the claim being argued against is that the French Revolution is good evidence that societies can get more benefits than harms from a revolution). But the author doesn’t mention any internal inconsistencies. The author talks about how the French Revolution is a bad example because of how civil servants and functionaries carried out their tasks, but this isn’t an “internal inconsistency.” This is just showing that the example used doesn’t match well. So (A) isn’t the right answer here.

Now as for the main point the argument’s trying to make, yes, it’s that the French Revolution isn’t a good example. The reason is a bit different though. The idea is that the French Revolution shouldn’t count because it didn’t happen like a “normal” revolution should, since civil servants and functionaries remained in office. This wouldn’t happen during a “normal” revolution, and so there would be more bad effects of a “normal” revolution. So the stimulus is basically arguing that the French Revolution is a bad example because of this added variable that doesn’t normally happen during revolutions.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.