Passage Summary: A historian defends a political party by saying that because they reached their goals easily, they weren't 'overambitious,' and because they weren't all-powerful, they couldn't have caused any of the suffering they're blamed for.

Conclusion: The revolutionary party was not overambitious and did not cause any of the suffering it was accused of causing.

Reasoning: The party's goals were reached quickly, suggesting they weren't too ambitious, and the party lacked the power to cause the specific amount of suffering critics claimed.

Analysis: This argument is a bit of a mess, isn't it? First, it assumes that reaching a goal quickly proves it wasn't overambitious—but maybe the party was just lucky or the goal was still extreme. More importantly, the historian argues that because the party couldn't have caused *all* the suffering, they must have caused *none* of it. This is a classic 'all-or-nothing' fallacy. Look for an answer choice that points out how the historian treats a lack of total proof for a claim as total proof for the opposite claim.