A historian argues that the decline of the Roman Empire was not due to a single catastrophic event, but rather a confluence of protracted economic instability, political corruption, and social fragmentation. This perspective challenges the traditional narrative that often emphasizes barbarian invasions as the primary cause. Which of the following scenarios is most analogous to the historian's argument?
- AA meteorologist explains a severe drought as the cumulative result of successive dry seasons and reduced snowfall.
- BA chef identifies a dish's failure as stemming solely from a single spoiled ingredient.
- CA doctor attributes a patient's chronic illness to a single, rare genetic mutation.
- DAn engineer concludes that a bridge collapse was caused by a sudden, unexpected earthquake.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. A meteorologist explains a severe drought as the cumulative result of successive dry seasons and reduced snowfall.
The historian argues for a 'confluence of protracted economic instability, political corruption, and social fragmentation' as the cause of Rome's decline, explicitly stating it was 'not due to a single catastrophic event.' This is a multi-factor, gradual causation. Option C, the meteorologist explaining drought as a 'cumulative result of successive dry seasons and reduced snowfall,' perfectly mirrors this multi-factor, gradual, and non-single-event causation. Options A, B, and D all describe a single, primary cause, which directly contradicts the historian's argument.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. This also describes a single cause, not a confluence of factors.
- C. This describes a single cause, which is the opposite of the historian's argument.
- D. This describes a single, sudden cause, again contradicting the historian's multi-factor, protracted view.
Analogous Reasoning (Application)
Applying the logical structure or principle of an argument from a given passage to a new, different scenario to find the most parallel situation.
- Focus on the underlying pattern of causation, comparison, or relationship.
- Ignore irrelevant details of the new scenario; concentrate on structural similarity.
- Look for matches in the number of causes, their nature (single vs. multiple, sudden vs. protracted), and their effect.
Memory trick: Match the argument's blueprint, not just its paint.