Question

The case of the French Revolution is typically regarded as the best evidence for the claim that societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution. But even the French Revolution serves this role poorly, since France at the time of the Revolution had a unique advantage. Despite the Revolution, the same civil servants and functionaries remained in office, carrying on the day-to-day work of government, and thus many of the disruptions that revolutions normally bring were avoided. Which one of the following most accurately characterizes the argumentative strategy used in the passage? (A) demonstrating that the claim argued against is internally inconsistent (B) supporting a particular position on the basis of general principles (C) opposing a claim by undermining evidence offered in support of that claim (D) justifying a view through the use of a series of persuasive examples (E) comparing two positions in order to illustrate their relative strengths and weaknesses

Short answer

(C) Opposing a claim by undermining evidence offered in support of that claim.

Step-by-step solution

Understand the Claim

The passage claims that revolutions can bring more benefit than harm. It uses the French Revolution as an evidence, suggesting it supports this claim due to the presence of stable civil servants during the period.

Identify the Argumentative Strategy

The passage argues that the French Revolution doesn't support the general claim because it was an exception rather than a rule, due to stable civil servants retaining their positions.

Eliminate Inconsistent Options

Option (A), (B), (D), and (E) do not fit because they describe strategies not employed in the passage. The passage doesn't show inconsistency (A), doesn't use general principles (B), doesn't provide multiple examples (D), and doesn't compare two positions (E).

Select the Best Characterization

Option (C) is correct because the passage undermines the evidence offered for the claim by showing it is not representative due to France's unique circumstances during the Revolution.

Key concepts

Argumentative Strategy

Understanding the concept of argumentative strategy is crucial when analyzing any piece of reasoning. It’s about how the author structures their arguments to convince the reader. An effective argumentative strategy may involve presenting evidence, undermining opposing viewpoints, or making logical connections between ideas.
In the passage about the French Revolution, a specific argumentative strategy is employed. Here, the strategy involves opposing a claim by questioning the strength and relevance of the evidence used to support it.

• The claim is that revolutions bring more benefits than harm, backed by the example of the French Revolution.
• The argument suggests this claim is faulty because the French Revolution is considered an exception due to its unique set of circumstances.
• This strategy seeks to undermine the evidence by reflecting on unique advantages that don't typically occur in other revolutions.

This makes option (C) the best fit, as the argument’s core is built around diminishing the reliability of the cited evidence.

Evidence Evaluation

Evaluating evidence is at the heart of logical reasoning, which involves assessing whether the presented evidence effectively supports the claim. In our example, the French Revolution was used to argue that revolutions can be beneficial. However, evaluating this evidence reveals a flaw.
When assessing evidence, consider:

• Relevance: Does the evidence directly support the claim?
• Reliability: Are the circumstances typical or unique?
• Sufficiency: Is there enough evidence to support the conclusion?

The passage weakens the French Revolution as evidence by showing it relied on circumstances like stable civil servants, which are rare in most revolutionary contexts. This implies that the evidence might not be sufficient or entirely reliable for supporting the broader claim about revolutions. By challenging the typicality of the French case, the passage encourages us to think critically about how we use evidence to reinforce an argument.

Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is your toolbox for analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information. It’s what helps you not take arguments at face value but instead dig deeper into their validity and consistency.
Applying critical thinking to the French Revolution argument involves:

• Scrutinizing whether the Revolution is a representative case or an outlier.
• Questioning the premises and their logical connection to the conclusion.
• Assessing potential biases or gaps in reasoning.

When the argument states that the Revolution had less disruption due to retained civil servants, critical thinking prompts us to ask whether such a situation is commonplace in revolutions. It also makes us consider whether other revolutions might have more typical circumstances that do lead to harm. This kind of critical inquiry lets us more robustly evaluate the claim of whether revolutions generally offer more benefit than harm.

French Revolution Case Study

Diving into the French Revolution as a case study offers a fascinating glimpse into how specific historical instances can be used to argue broader societal concepts. The French Revolution (1789-1799) involved the overthrow of the monarchy, leading to France's transition to a republic. It’s often cited as an example of how revolutions can both extend freedoms and lead to social transformation.
However, as the passage points out, the situation in France was unique.

• Unlike many revolutions, the French Revolution preserved a level of governmental continuity which mitigated potential chaos.
• Civil servants retained their positions, ensuring that governance and daily routines were less disrupted compared to typical revolutionary scenarios.

This stabilization is a central part of the argument that France’s experience does not universally apply, hence questioning the validity of drawing broad conclusions from it.
Studying such case studies can deepen our understanding of historical events and their implications while teaching us the importance of context in drawing inferences or supporting claims.