guerrero25 wrote:
Archeological excavations in Northern Africa revealed manuscripts written in contemporary European languages, leading archeologists to hypothesize that some manuscripts were brought to Northern Africa from Europe. However, the chemical composition of ink used at that time in Northern Africa was significantly different from that of ink used in Europe, and all the manuscripts found during the excavations were written with the same type of ink. Clearly, all manuscripts found during the excavations were either written or transcribed in Northern Africa.
The argument above is most vulnerable to criticism on the basis that
(A)it fails to establish whether European manuscripts of that time had previously been found in Northern Africa.
(B)it fails to establish the likelihood that European manuscripts had been transported to Northern Africa.
(C)it fails to consider the possibility that African scribes knew European languages of that time.
(D)it fails to consider the possibility that all manuscripts found during the excavations had been written in Europe.
(E)it fails to consider the possibility that European scribes could have lived in Northern Africa at that time.
Explanation: The argument above concludes that all manuscripts found during the excavations were written in Africa because they were written with the same ink and ink used in Europe was significantly different from ink used in Northern Africa. This argument is flawed since, as stated in Choice D, it fails to consider the possibility that all the manuscripts were written in Europe, which is quite possible since the argument did not specify whether they were all written with the ink used in Africa or with the ink used in Europe.
A) Whether European manuscripts had previously been found in Northern Africa is irrelevant to the origin of the manuscripts discussed here.
B) The likelihood of European manuscripts being transported to Northern Africa does not affect the possibility that the manuscripts were all written in Northern Africa.
C) If African scribes had known European languages, it would have been even more likely that the manuscripts had been written in Northern Africa, not brought from Europe.
D) orrect. This correctly points out a flaw of the argument.
E) If European scribes had lived in Northern Africa, then it would have been even more likely that those manuscripts had been written there and not brought from Europe.
The argument assumes that since ALL the manuscripts are written with the same ink , ALL Manuscripts were necessarily written in Aftrica.
BUT the argument does not establish that the ink used was identical to African ink or European Ink.
Hence, it is open to debate and doubt.
Note that the conclusion is very strong-Clearly, all manuscripts found during the excavations were either written or transcribed in Northern Africa.
(A)it fails to establish whether European manuscripts of that time had previously been found in Northern Africa.-
We are only interested in the manuscripts stated in the argument.
(B)it fails to establish the likelihood that European manuscripts had been transported to Northern Africa.
So what? Even if European Manuscripts were transported to North Africa, we are only interested in the ones found during the excavation. There may be European manuscripts somewhere but not excavated.There is a clear distinction between LIKELIHOOD AND EXACT OCCURRENCE.
(C)it fails to consider the possibility that African scribes knew European languages of that time.
We will need to make additional assumptions to link this to the conclusion.Infact, this strengthens the conclusion by saying that the Afrcian scribes used Afrcian ink to write European Manuscripts.
(D)it fails to consider the possibility that all manuscripts found during the excavations had been written in Europe.
This option clearly establishes that all the manuscripts could have been written in Europe with European Ink.Note the argument does not state the type of ink used to write the argument. The argument naively assumes that the ink is of type used in Africa.
(E)it fails to consider the possibility that European scribes could have lived in Northern Africa at that time.
So what?As long as they used Afrcian ink, the argument can get strengthened.
close
18 Apr 2013, 13:03
