Warrington: Although the study of classical works is essential to the liberal arts, a classics department isn’t, since other departments often engage in that study.
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
Lopez concludes that our university is not committed to liberal arts. He bases this on the fact that the university closed the classics department. To Lopez, studying classics is necessary for studying liberal arts.
Warrington agrees that studying classics is necessary for liberal arts, but points out that other departments besides the classics department involve studying classics. (The implication is that Lopez’s argument isn’t convincing, because the closing of the classics department does not show that the university isn’t committed to liberal arts.)
Warrington agrees that studying classics is necessary for liberal arts, but points out that other departments besides the classics department involve studying classics. (The implication is that Lopez’s argument isn’t convincing, because the closing of the classics department does not show that the university isn’t committed to liberal arts.)
Describe Method of Reasoning
Warrington points out that an assumption Lopez made (that the classics department is the only department that studies classics) is wrong.
A
offering additional reasons in favor of the conclusion of Lopez’s argument
Warrington undermines an assumption in Lopez’s argument. He doesn’t support Lopez’s conclusion.
B
claiming that the reasoning in Lopez’s argument rests on an illicit appeal to tradition
Warrington does not claim that Lopez’s argument rests on an appeal to tradition. (Appeal to tradition involves arguing that we should do something because it’s always been done that way.)
C
mounting a direct challenge to the conclusion of Lopez’s argument
There’s no direct challenge to Lopez’s conclusion. His point is that the closing of the classic department isn’t enough to prove Lopez’s conclusion. This isn’t a direct challenge, which would require him to argue that our university IS committed to liberal arts.
D
responding to a possible objection to the reasoning in Lopez’s argument
Warrington criticizes Lopez’s argument. He does not defend Lopez’s argument from a criticism.
E
presenting a consideration in order to undermine the reasoning in Lopez’s argument
Warrington presents a consideration (that other departments study classics) to show that Lopez’s premises (the classics department was closed, and classics is crucial to liberal arts) does not prove his conclusion (that the university doesn’t care about liberal arts).
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.