Logical reasoning PrepTest 158 · Section 4 · Question 22

This doesn't affect the argument at all. Plus, it uses the weak, wishy-washy language ("some") we don't like on Weaken questions. Statements expressed with this type of language usually do not meaningfully affect an argument, so answer choices expressed with such language are often wrong on Weaken (and Strengthen/Strengthen with a Sufficient Assumption!) questions.

Further, it simply doesn't matter if medieval and ancient epistemologists shared some beliefs. This doesn't present a major downside to the historian's definition of "medieval epistemology." This answer choice would mean that some beliefs held by ancient epistemologists would be included in "medieval epistemology." But, the historian never says or implies that medieval epistemology cannot contain any beliefs held by ancient epistemologists.

Finally, if we used the backup plan, we could construct this argument (note that we simplified the premises and answer choice and are using the negated form of the conclusion):

"Until recently, intellectual historians didn't have a definition of medieval epistemology. We can define medieval epistemology as the epistemological beliefs medieval epistemologists hold. If we want to know whether medieval epistemology includes a belief, we'll ask whether any medieval epistemologists believe it. If they do, it's part of medieval epistemology. If any believe the opposite, the opposite claim is part of medieval epistemology. But, medieval and ancient epistemologists share some of the same epistemological beliefs. So, we maybe shouldn't define medieval epistemology as the epistemological beliefs medieval epistemologists hold."

This argument doesn't sound very convincing. "Ancient epistemologists" pop up out of nowhere in the "But" statement, and it's unclear why they would present a reason why we "maybe shouldn't" use the historian's definition of medieval epistemology.

Whichever approach we use, we can eliminate (A).

This answer choice doesn't affect the argument. It doesn't present a major downside to the historian's definition of "medieval epistemology." It only suggests that medieval epistemologists' epistemological beliefs are influenced by non-epistemological matters. But, the historian never says or implies that non-epistemological beliefs cannot influence medieval epistemology.

Moreover, if we used the backup plan, we could construct this argument (note that we simplified the premises and answer choice and are using the negated form of the conclusion):

"Until recently, intellectual historians didn't have a definition of medieval epistemology. We can define medieval epistemology as the epistemological beliefs medieval epistemologists hold. If we want to know whether medieval epistemology includes a belief, we'll ask whether any medieval epistemologists believe it. If they do, it's part of medieval epistemology. If any believe the opposite, the opposite claim is part of medieval epistemology. But, medieval epistemologists' beliefs depended on their non-epistemological beliefs. So, we maybe shouldn't define medieval epistemology as the epistemological beliefs medieval epistemologists hold."

This argument doesn't sound very persuasive. "Non-epistemological beliefs" show up without any rhyme or reason in the "But" statement. That statement doesn't seem to contradict or present a downside to anything that comes before it, so it's unclear why the "But" statement provides a reason why we "maybe shouldn't" use the historian's definition of medieval epistemology.

Whichever approach we use, we can eliminate (B).

This answer choice is irrelevant to the argument. It doesn't matter that most medieval epistemologists also wrote about non-epistemological matters. We wouldn't use those writings to define medieval epistemology. So, (C) doesn't present a major downside to the historian's definition of "medieval epistemology."

Moreover, if we used the backup plan, we could construct this argument (note that we simplified the premises and answer choice and are using the negated form of the conclusion):

"Until recently, intellectual historians didn't have a definition of medieval epistemology. We can define medieval epistemology as the epistemological beliefs medieval epistemologists hold. If we want to know whether medieval epistemology includes a belief, we'll ask whether any medieval epistemologists believe it. If they do, it's part of medieval epistemology. If any believe the opposite, the opposite claim is part of medieval epistemology. But, most medieval epistemologists sometimes wrote about non-epistemological matters. So, we maybe shouldn't define medieval epistemology as the epistemological beliefs medieval epistemologists hold."

This argument doesn't sound very persuasive. The "But" statement doesn't sound like it undermines or presents a downside of the premises that come before it. So, it doesn't provide a reason why we "maybe shouldn't" use the historian's definition of medieval epistemology.

Whichever approach we use, we can eliminate (C).

This answer choice is very tempting! If this answer choice were true, then medieval epistemology would contain some "contradictory" beliefs. If one medieval epistemologist thought we know things by experiencing them and another thought we don't know things by experiencing them, then medieval epistemology would hold that we simultaneously do and do not know things by experiencing them. That seems a little confusing!

However, let's go back to fundamentals. This answer choice uses the weak, wishy-washy language ("some") we don't like on Weaken questions. Statements expressed with this type of language usually do not meaningfully affect an argument, so answer choices expressed with such language are often wrong on Weaken (and Strengthen/Strengthen with a Sufficient Assumption!) questions.

So, even if this answer choice seems to present a major downside to the historian's definition, its weak language suggests that the downside might not be so bad. If only "some" medieval epistemologists had views that contradicted other medieval epistemologists, medieval epistemology may not have that many contradictions. Maybe there's only like, one contradiction. That's not the end of the world. Especially because the historian concedes that medieval epistemology is a "complex" topic. And it's worth noting that the historian never said or implied that medieval epistemology couldn't contain contradictory views.

Alternatively, if we used the backup plan, we could construct this argument (note that we simplified the premises and answer choice and are using the negated form of the conclusion):

"Until recently, intellectual historians didn't have a definition of medieval epistemology. We can define medieval epistemology as the epistemological beliefs medieval epistemologists hold. If we want to know whether medieval epistemology includes a belief, we'll ask whether any medieval epistemologists believe it. "If they do, it's part of medieval epistemology. If any believe the opposite, the opposite claim is part of medieval epistemology. But, some medieval epistemologists had epistemological beliefs that contradicted those of other medieval epistemologists. So, we maybe shouldn't define medieval epistemology as the epistemological beliefs medieval epistemologists hold."

This argument doesn't sound terrible! The "But" statement seemingly presents a downside of the previous claim. It shows that sometimes contradictory claims will become part of medieval epistemology. However, as discussed above, it's only a "some" statement. Saying that a definition "sometimes" produces confusing results is probably not the best reason to throw out the definition. 

This isn't the worst answer choice in the world, and it's OK if we keep it as a contender. But this isn't a slam dunk. It features the type of wishy-washy language we want to avoid. And it doesn't conform to any anticipated we could have reasonably made. So, we definitely need to check the remaining answer choice before selecting (D).

Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Weaken

Passage Summary:
Until recently, intellectual historians didn't have a definition of medieval epistemology. We should define medieval epistemology as the epistemological beliefs medieval epistemologists hold. If we want to know whether medieval epistemology includes a belief, we'll ask whether any medieval epistemologists believe it. If they do, it's part of medieval epistemology. If any believe the opposite, the opposite claim is part of medieval epistemology.

Strategy Overview:

1. Argument or facts? Always argument, so identify premises and conclusions of argument
2. Anticipate why the premises are not enough to show that the conclusion is true
1. Causal argument? Look for answer choice that:
1. Shows possible alternate cause
2. Shows cause without effect
3. Shows effect without cause
4. Shows the cause and effect are reversed
2. If not causal argument, anticipate ways to worsen problem with argument
3. Use anticipations to select the answer choice that, if true, would weaken argument

Answer Anticipation:
Our ultimate goal is to find the answer choice that weakens the argument. However, it's much easier to do that if we first break down the argument and identify its flaws. Then, weakening the argument is only a matter of finding the answer choice that exploits that flaw.

After breaking down this argument, an experienced test-taker will immediately note that this conclusion makes a bold claim that makes an implicit prescription — we should define medieval epistemology as "the epistemological beliefs of the medieval epistemologists." Often, when the conclusion is a bold, prescriptive claim, the author doesn't consider all of the downsides of the recommendation. Are we sure this is a good way to define medieval epistemology? Might it have any downsides that would, for instance, not help us "determine what should and what should not be included in" medieval epistemology?

This is where most test-takers get stuck on this problem. It's very difficult to anticipate a downside to this definition. However, we'll be OK as long as we understand how this definition works. Remember what the premises tell us: If we want to know whether medieval epistemology includes a belief, we'll ask whether any medieval epistemologists believe it. If they do, it's part of medieval epistemology. If any believe the opposite, the opposite claim is part of medieval epistemology.

Now, we can simply assess whether any of these answer choices present a major downside to this definition that would make us think differently about whether we "should" make this the standard definition of medieval epistemology.

But if that's hard to do, this question provides a good opportunity to break out the backup plan. To resort to the backup plan, we'll re-read the premises. Then, we'll say, "But," and re-read the answer choice. Finally, we'll say, "So, it may not be true that" and re-read this argument's conclusion. (Or we can just say "So" and then read the negated form of the conclusion.) If that argument makes sense, we'll know the answer choice weakens the argument. If the argument doesn't make much sense, then we can cross that answer choice off. Here's a simplified template we can use for this backup plan (note that we simplified the premise and are using the negated form of the conclusion):

"Until recently, intellectual historians didn't have a definition of medieval epistemology.

"We can define medieval epistemology as the epistemological beliefs medieval epistemologists hold.

"If we want to know whether medieval epistemology includes a belief, we'll ask whether any medieval epistemologists believe it. "If they do, it's part of medieval epistemology.

"If any believe the opposite, the opposite claim is part of medieval epistemology.

"But, [answer choice].

"So, we maybe shouldn't define medieval epistemology as the epistemological beliefs medieval epistemologists hold."

Answer Choice Explanation:
This definitely presents a downside to the historian's definition of medieval epistemology. The historian's definition hinges on finding medieval epistemologists and figuring out their epistemological beliefs. This answer choice presents a reason why that definition isn't workable — it's hard to tell who was a "medieval epistemologist." It's possible, according to this answer choice, that no one was a medieval epistemologist! If either fact is true, the historian's definition is yet another definition of medieval epistemology that will not help us "determine what should and what should not be included in" medieval epistemology.

Moreover, unlike other tempting answer choices like (D), this answer choice does not feature wishy-washy, weak language. That's another major asset for this answer choice; it should make us feel more comfortable eliminating (D) and selecting (E).

Alternatively, if we used the backup plan, we could construct this argument (note that we simplified the premises and are using the negated form of the conclusion):

"Until recently, intellectual historians didn't have a definition of medieval epistemology. We can define medieval epistemology as the epistemological beliefs medieval epistemologists hold. If we want to know whether medieval epistemology includes a belief, we'll ask whether any medieval epistemologists believe it. If they do, it's part of medieval epistemology. If any believe the opposite, the opposite claim is part of medieval epistemology. But, there's much debate as to which medieval thinks, if any, were epistemologists. So, we maybe shouldn't define medieval epistemology as the epistemological beliefs medieval epistemologists hold."

This argument sounds persuasive! The "But" statement presents a major downside of the previous claims. It shows that we may not be able to apply the historian's approach, as we won't be able to figure out "whether any medieval epistemologists" believe a claim.

Whichever approach we use, we can confidently select (E).

Key Takeaway:
This is, by far, the hardest question in this section. Questions like these can be considered "170 breakers" — the questions that top scorers must answer correctly to distinguish themselves from the test-takers who earn lower scores. If you mostly answer these questions wrong, breaking through the 170 barrier is a matter of turning these misses into makes.

Fortunately, the process for answering 170-breaker questions doesn't change. The same approach that will help you answer the normal questions will help you answer these questions. Often, the basics — like noting whether we prefer a bold or weak answer choice for this type of question — will help us pick the correct answer choice.

(By the way, if you're content to earn a score lower than 170, you don't need to worry too much about these questions. It's great if you can answer them correctly, but you mostly want to avoid wasting too much time on them. Instead, it's often wiser to make a quick, educated guess and bank the time you saved for the normal questions that you have to answer correctly to earn your target score.)