Summarize Argument
The modern historians disagree with the view that Calgigula was a cruel and insane tyrant. This is based on the fact that only a little documentation of Caligula’s alleged cruelty or outrageous behavior survives. In addition, the documentation that survives was written by his enemies.
Notable Assumptions
The author assumes that if Caligula were a cruel and insane tyrant, more documentation would have survived, and that documentation would not have only been written by his enemies. The author also assumes that the fact reports of his cruelty and outrageous behavior were written by his enemies suggests that those reports are not accurate.
A
There is less documentation of any sort from Caligula’s reign than from the reigns of most other Roman emperors of Caligula’s era.
If anything, this weakens the argument by suggesting that the little documentation concerning Caligula’s cruelty isn’t particularly significant. If there’s less documentation overall from his time, that could explain why there’s not much documentation of his cruelty.
B
People who have lived under someone regarded as a cruel tyrant are more likely to view that person unfavorably than favorably.
This doesn’t help suggest that Caligula wasn’t cruel. We don’t know whether Caligula was regarded favorably or unfavorably.
C
The specific outrageous acts attributed to Caligula in Roman documentation are very similar to acts attributed in earlier writings to other rulers alleged to be cruel tyrants.
This strengthens by suggesting that the descriptions written by Caligula’s enemies concerning Caligula’s outrageous acts may have been copied from earlier writings about other rulers. It provides evidence suggesting that those accounts about Caligula may not be reliable.
D
The little documentation that survives from Caligula’s reign indicates that the Roman people believed Caligula to be crueler than other emperors who were widely thought to be tyrants.
How Caligula’s reported cruelty ranks compared to others doesn’t affect whether Caligula was in fact as cruel as reported.
E
There is ample documentation of modern tyrants being responsible for outrageous acts worse than those attributed to Caligula.
This suggests that there have been modern tyrants who did things that were more cruel than what was attributed to Caligula. But this doesn’t suggest that Caligula wasn’t cruel. He might not have been as cruel as others, but this doesn’t mean his cruelty has been exaggerated.
Summary
Atoms naturally repel each other. But they can fuse together if they collide with enough energy to overcome this repelling force. If atoms collide with too much energy, however, then after the atoms fuse together, the excess energy will make the new fused atom hot. The hotter a fused atom, the greater the chance it will immediately split apart again.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
In order to fuse two atoms together, but also keep the fused atom from splitting apart again, there’s a certain range of energy that’s required for the collision. (In other words, there’s a certain “Goldilocks” range. The energy can’t be too low, or else the atoms won’t fuse. The energy can’t be too high, or else the atoms will split apart after fusing.)
A
When physicists create new kinds of atoms by fusing together two existing atoms, the new atoms usually split apart again immediately.
Unsupported, because we don’t know the typical level of energy produced when physicists try to fuse atoms together. We have no evidence that the physicists aren’t creating collisions with the right amount of energy to avoid splitting.
B
If a new atom produced by the collision of two other atoms immediately splits apart again, then the collision did not produce enough energy to overcome the electromagnetic force by which atoms repel each other.
This is anti-supported, because in order to fuse together in the first place, the energy of the collision needed to overcome the repelling force.
C
The stronger the electromagnetic force by which two atoms repel each other, the hotter any new atom will be that is created by the fusion of those two atoms.
Unsupported, because we don’t know about the relationship between the repelling force and heat. We know that if the collision produces a lot of energy, that create heat. But we don’t know what happens if the repelling force is greater or lower.
D
Whenever two existing atoms are made to collide and fuse together into a new atom, little energy is produced in the collision unless the new atom immediately splits apart.
Unsupported, because we know there’s a range of energy in which two atoms can fuse and not immediately split apart. This level of energy needs to be enough to overcome the repelling force, and this could be a high level. We don’t have evidence that this is a low amount of energy.
E
If two atoms collide with considerably more energy than is needed for fusion to take place, the new atom will be likely to immediately split apart again.
Supported, because we know that if the energy produced by a collision greatly exceeds the minimum required to fuse, the fused atom will be very hot. The hotter an atom, the more likely it will split. I don’t like the word “likely” here, but it’s the most supported answer.