AndrewN wrote:
ravigupta2912 wrote:
Hi Andrew, I'm not sure if i understood the 2nd point in @imSKR's analysis of A. My understanding is that we are to weaken the claim of biographers which argues that T disliked N because N caused poverty in Normandy, the place of his childhood.
I favored C over A since A was a little ambiguous in so far as bad harvest could also be due to his management (maybe his cavalry marched on all farmer fields!). C was quite direct and has very little ambiguity which, made me eliminate A.
I'm not sure if my reasons for elimination of A are perfect here? I don't quite understand the timing. If T believed in past, and biographers claim is at a later date - then we have no real info to judge. So if the answer choice is infact giving an alternate reason for the desired effect (dislike for centralised govt), then A actually weakens the argument?
Request your inputs
AndrewN You do not have to follow each point that someone aims to make in a post to appreciate that an answer choice may be flawed. When I look at (A), all I see is an affirmation of the biographers' claim, namely that
in the past, the poverty-stricken people of Normandy, among whom Tocqueville was raised, often blamed Napoleon
for the terrible living conditions in Normandy. Whatever historians now believe was
the cause or agent of the
bad harvests is irrelevant to that claim. If people of the past blamed Napoleon, they blamed Napoleon, plain and simple, and the
although framework of (A) is a concession to that very point. (I think you will agree that invoking could-be-true scenarios about the military under Napoleon trampling fields is a much less direct and more challenging approach to justify.)
- Andrew
Hi
ravigupta2912 hello
AndrewN sir
Sir has already briefed well the key point.
Just to clarify on 2nd point raised by
ravigupta2912 : My point was that what historians now believe and what bio claim doesn't provide us useful information to judge and leaves us with too many open ends.
If you think strengthen side: Oh Bio knows that it is because of poor economic conditions , still they think T blamed N for such a condition, so it means it maybe because of N?
Or weaken side: Ah! so it was not because of N but because of other reasons , hence weaken.
This option adds some unnecessary information that is not of much value . There can be unlimited ambiguous claims but judging them are left to reader as in the example highlighted:
(I think you will agree that invoking could-be-true scenarios about the military under Napoleon trampling fields is a much less direct and more challenging approach to justify.)So a hint: why such an option would be correct answer that is not directly influencing our conclusion.
So after thinking this, I was not convinced with A and moved on to next options.
C also has some open ends. But at least we get a direction that T had reasons to avoid poverty inspite of N do what .
What i mean is: C can be argued, oh! He could hate N because even after his father death N didn't do anything, but on other side, if his father had steady income, then in spite of he hated or liked N, his conditions would have been better. So at least some bridge is covered in C at one side as compared to A in which both ends are open . So I kept hold on C.
Please share your thoughts.
Thanks!