Historian: 'The decline of the Roman Empire was primarily due to its overreliance on slave labor. This reliance stifled innovation and made the economy inflexible, ultimately leading to its collapse.'
- AMany other ancient empires that did not rely heavily on slave labor also eventually collapsed.
- BSome historians argue that the decline was primarily due to political instability and corruption.
- CThe Roman Empire expanded to such a vast size that it became inherently difficult to govern effectively.
- DThe Roman Empire faced numerous external military threats throughout its later centuries.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: D. The Roman Empire faced numerous external military threats throughout its later centuries.
The historian attributes the decline *primarily* to overreliance on slave labor. Options B, C, and D all provide alternative causes for the empire's decline. However, the question asks to weaken the claim that slave labor was the *primary* cause. Option B, by introducing a major external factor (military threats) that was constantly present and could independently lead to collapse, most directly challenges the idea that slave labor was the *driving* or *foremost* cause, suggesting it might have been a contributing factor among many, or even a less significant one.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This weakens the argument by suggesting slave labor wasn't a unique or necessary cause of collapse, but it's a generalization, not a direct alternative for Rome.
- B. This introduces an alternative cause, but as an opinion of 'some historians,' it is less definitively presented than 'numerous external military threats'.
- C. This provides another plausible alternative cause, but 'inherently difficult to govern' is a more abstract and less direct external pressure than ongoing military threats.
Undermining a Primary Cause
To weaken an argument that asserts one factor is the *main* or *foremost* cause by introducing another plausible and significant cause that could be equally or more primary.
- Does not necessarily deny the stated cause's existence.
- Focuses on challenging the *degree* or *preeminence* of the stated cause.
- Often involves presenting a compelling alternative explanation.
Memory trick: Primary cause? A rival might be the true boss!