A history book written hundreds

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite (if anything)13% picked this

   authors generally try to reconcile discrepancies

   This argument is only about this one book, so our author doesn't need to assume anything about what authors generally do. But even if we got past that, this goes against our author's thinking. She is saying this book used multiple sources and ended up with inconsistencies as a result, so this author seemingly did NOT reconcile the different sources.

   13%
2. B

   Out of Scope: average reader5% picked this

   the inconsistencies would be apparent to the average reader of the history book at

   The author isn't making any assumptions about "the average reader". It doesn't matter whether these inconsistencies are obvious only to scholars or whether most of us average readers would notice them. We only care about what caused them.

   5%
3. C

   Correct58% picked this

   the history book’s author used no source that contained inconsistencies repeated in

   Why this is right

   Since this has the lovable "ruling-out" language (no / not) that we associate with correct Defender-style answers on Necessary Assumption, it's worth slowing down, negating this, and seeing whether it weakens. The negation would be saying that the book's author DID use a source that contained inconsistencies repeated in the author's book. This would weaken by presenting an alternate explanation for why the book has inconsistencies: it's not that the book's writer used multiple sources; rather, it's because the book's writer used one source, which itself had multiple inconsistencies.

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   58%
4. D

   Out of Scope (author's awareness)13% picked this

   the author of the history book was aware of the kinds of inconsistencies that can arise when

   The author's awareness of the Effect (inconsistencies) has nothing to do with whether that Effect is attributable to "multiple sources" or some other reason. We don't have to think the author was aware of these inconsistencies in order to believe the hypothesis that the inconsistencies arose from using multiple sources.

   13%
5. E

   Too Strong: all12% picked this

   the author of the history book was familiar with all of the available source material that was relevant

   This hypothesis certainly doesn't need to think that the author was familiar with 100% of available source material. If we negated this and said the author was only familiar with 99% of the available source material, that wouldn't hurt the hypothesis at all.

   12%