Historian: In the Drindian Empire, censuses were conducted annually to determine the
population of each village. Village census records for the last half of the 1600’s are
This very completeness makes one point stand out; in five
different years, villages overwhelmingly reported significant population declines.
Tellingly, each of those five years immediately followed an increase in a certain Drindian
tax. This tax, which was assessed on villages, was computed by the central government
using the annual census figures. Obviously, whenever the tax went up, villages had an
especially powerful economic incentive to minimize the number of people they recorded;
and concealing the size of a village’s population from government census takers would
have been easy. Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the reported declines did not
B1 - Census records were neat and complete
- Points out an odd situation
B2 - offers an explanation to the odd situation
Additional info: B2 supports the conclusion, B1 and B2 follow the same direction.
In the historian’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following
A. The first supplies a context for the historian’s argument; the second acknowledges
a consideration that has been used to argue against the position the historian seeks
to establish.we have an issue with the second boldf, the two portions agree, this answer is inconsistent.
B. The first presents evidence to support the position that the historian seeks to
establish; the second acknowledges a consideration that has been used to argue
against that position.Looks good hold
C. The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the
historian seeks to establish; the second is that position.The second clarifies the odds and supports the conclusion it is not the conclusion itself
D. The first is a position for which the historian argues; the second is an assumption
that serves as the basis of that argument.Completely off, the author accepts the first boldf statement
E. The first is an assumption that the historian explicitly makes in arguing for a
certain position; the second acknowledges a consideration that calls that
assumption into question.The first is not an assumption, moreover the statements go in the same direction
learn the rules of the game, then play better than anyone else.