A conventional view of nineteenth-century Britain holds that iron manu

3. The author suggests that the total probate valuations of the personal property of individuals holding goods for sale in nineteenth-century Britain may have been
(A) affected by the valuation conventions for such goods
This is so because of the following :

However, such records do not unequivocally make Rubinstein’s case. Uncertainties abound about how the probate rules for valuing assets were actually applied.
(B) less accurate than the valuations for such goods provided by income tax returns
(C) less, on average, if such goods were tobacco-related than if they were alcohol-related
(D) greater, on average, than the total probate valuations of those individuals who held bank balances
(E) dependent on whether such goods were held by industrialists or by merchants or bankers

Does this help?

Hit kudos please.

6. Which one of the following studies would provide support for Rubinstein’s claims?
(A) a study that indicated that many members of the commercial elite in nineteenth-century London had insignificant holdings of real property
(B) a study that indicated that in the nineteenth century, industrialists from the north of England were in fact a target for working-class people
(C) a study that indicated that, in nineteenth-century Britain, probate values of goods for sale were not as high as probate values of cash assets
(D) a study that indicated that the wealth of nineteenth-century British industrialists did not appear to be significantly greater when the full value of their real property holdings was actually considered
(E) a study that indicated that at least some members of the official governing elite in nineteenth-century Britain owned more real property than had previously been thought to be the case

This question basically asks what can we use to strengthen the claims? so for that we need to find the weakness which is given in the q3! that is the uncertainity in calculating probate values!

Choice d suggests thats 2 variables of studying probate value does not give a lot of difference so it can be trusted for the difference is minimal and hence the claims can be accepted?

Hope it helps!

Hit kudos

Can someone please explain how C is wrong in Q7 ?
I chose C because it was mentioned "at the time of entry".

Hope it helps

17 mins, Got one wrong - question No. 2


2. The author of the passage implies that probate records as a source of information about wealth in nineteenth-century Britain are

(A) self-contradictory and misleading
(B) ambiguous and outdated
(C) controversial but readily available
(D) revealing but difficult to interpret
(E) widely used by historians but fully understandable only by specialists


I went with "C" - the passage states that "However, such records do not unequivocally make Rubinstein’s case." and "Uncertainties abound about how the probate rules for valuing assets were actually applied."

The tone seems to be of disagreement - will it be stretch to call it controversial ?

And how is "D" right answer ?

Hope it helps

Thanks, it was helpful.
Justify each word of the correct answer they say. thanks

P1: Author wants to consider Rubinstein’s argument that (new view) bankers and merchants have more wealth in numbers than (old view) iron and textile makers.
P2: Rubinstein supports claim with probate records. Records partially support Rubinstein but lots of valuation uncertainty and complications. One should check out this bias.
P3: Rubinstein questions most wealth = most powerful. R: wealth isn’t related to entry into high positions of power.
P4: Rubinstein, other study, support with income tax returns. Support is “meh”.
Main Idea: Investigate the truth of Rubinstein’s challenge of the old view but ultimately finds it is only “partially convincing” on 2 fronts.


1. The main idea of the passage is that

Pre-Thinking: Author investigates Rubinstein’s challenge of the old view but ultimately says his support on 2 fronts is only “partially convincing”.

(A) the Marxist interpretation of the relationship between class and power in nineteenth-century Britain is no longer viable

Error: Too extreme, too narrow
Where to look? According to Marxist historians, these industrialists were the target of the working class in its struggle for power. 
Analysis: “Marxist interpretation” is only mentioned in the introduction as an addendum to the power struggle. The passage does not claim the relationship is “no longer viable”. This is extreme; there is no support for this lack of viability. [See: 1) … factors like these introduced systematic biases into the probate valuations…would be worth investigating, 2) his claims can only be considered partially convincing].

(B) a simple equation between wealth and power is unlikely to be supported by new data from nineteenth-century British archives
Error: Too narrow,
Where to look? P3: The orthodox view that the wealthiest individuals were the most powerful is also questioned by Rubinstein’s study.
Analysis: This answer choice discusses the “relationship between wealth and power”, which is most heavily supported in the third paragraph but nothing is mentioned about “new data from 19th century archives…”. Also, the passage seems more focused on investigating Rubinstein’s claims than it is about figuring out the relationship between wealth and power.

(C) a recent historical investigation has challenged but not disproved the orthodox view of the distribution of wealth and the relationship of wealth to power in nineteenth-century Britain
Where to look?
P1: A conventional view of nineteenth-century… A new study by Rubinstein, however, suggests….
P3: But until further confirmatory investigation is done, his claims can only be considered partially convincing.
Analysis: “A recent historical investigation” refers to Rubinstein, who has “not disproved the orthodox view” is accurate (P3 on partially convincing).

(D) probate records provide the historian with a revealing but incomplete glimpse of the extent and location of wealth in nineteenth-century Britain
Error: Too narrow
Where to look?
P2: Rubinstein’s claim about the location of wealth comes from his investigation of probate records….
Analysis: “Probate records” were discussed in paragraph two only. Main idea answers should be broad.

(E) an attempt has been made to confirm the findings of a new historical study of nineteenth-century Britain, but complete confirmation is likely to remain elusive
Where to look?
P1: His claims are provocative and deserve consideration...
P4: But until further confirmatory investigation is done, his claims can only be considered partially convincing.
Analysis “An attempt” likely refers to the author trying to “confirming a new study [Rubenstein’s]” but it doesn’t mention that “complete confirmation is LIKELY to remain elusive” — just that they need more “confirmation”! OR “an attempt” is Rubinstein’s to “confirm a new historical study” would be wrong.

2. The author of the passage implies that probate records as a source of information about wealth in nineteenth-century Britain are

Pre-Thinking: Records show some things but there’s a lot of uncertainty with how to interpret it.

Where to look?
P2

(A) self-contradictory and misleading
Error: Half Right
Might be chosen if you focus on the misleading portion, which might be supported by the “it is possible…..” and “further complication…” Self-contradictory would be more like “the only thing that is certain is uncertainty”.

(B) ambiguous and outdated
Error: Half Right
Ambiguous is supported by uncertainties abound about how probate rules are applied. Outdated may seem like it is supported if you focus on the would today very often be a large fraction of market value…

(C) controversial but readily available
Error: Irrelevant

(D) revealing but difficult to interpret
Sounds like our pre-thinking! Supported by: These indicate the value of personal property… It does seem as if large fortunes were more frequently made in commerce than in industry… Uncertainties abound…

(E) widely used by historians but fully understandable only by specialists
Error: Irrelevant


3. The author suggests that the total probate valuations of the personal property of individuals holding goods for sale in nineteenth-century Britain may have been

Pre-Thinking: Going back to paragraph 2, it says “it is possible that” goods for sale were “much lower than their actual market value” WHILE cash “invariably considered at full face value.”

(A) affected by the valuation conventions for such goods
Definitively true.

(B) less accurate than the valuations for such goods provided by income tax returns
Error: Irrelevant
Where to look? P4: which reveal a geographical distribution of middle-class incomes similar to that of wealthy incomes revealed by probate records.
Analysis We are barely told about the relationship between valuations on probate records and income tax returns. P4 mentions the “distribution” of wealth is supported by probate records. Not the valuation of goods.

(C) less, on average, if such goods were tobacco-related than if they were alcohol-related
Error: Too narrow
Where to look? P2: It does seem as if large fortunes were more frequently made in commerce than in industry and, within industry, more frequently from alcohol or tobacco than from textiles or metal.
Analysis Not told about tobacco and alcohol difference.

(D) greater, on average, than the total probate valuations of those individuals who held bank balances
Error:
Where to look? P2: It is possible that their probate values were much lower than their actual market value:
Analysis
While it MIGHT be true (“much lower than market value”), we don’t know that it is “greater, on average” than the bankers! There’s no relative scale here. Just because cash was considered at full face value doesn’t mean that goods of sale is obviously greater on average than total probate valuations of bank balances.

(E) dependent on whether such goods were held by industrialists or by merchants or bankers
Error: Not relevant.

4. According to the passage, Rubinstein has provided evidence that challenges which one of the following claims about nineteenth-century Britain?


Pre-Thinking: Rubinstein challenges the idea that the industrialists were the wealthiest using probate records (P2) and relationship between wealth & power (P3).

(A) The distribution of great wealth between commerce and industry was not equal.
Error: This is not a claim about 19c Britain that he disproves.

(B) Large incomes were typically made in alcohol and tobacco rather than in textiles and metal.
Error: This is not a claim about 19c Britain that he disproves.
Why We Might “Fall for It” Proof: It does seem as if large fortunes were more frequently made in commerce than in industry and, within industry, more frequently from alcohol or tobacco than from textiles or metal.

(C) A London-based commercial elite can be identified.
Error: This is not a claim about 19c Britain that he disproves.

(D) An official governing elite can be identified.
Error: This is not a claim about 19c Britain that he disproves.

(E) There was a necessary relationship between great wealth and power.
Proof: The problem for this orthodox view is that Rubinstein finds many millionaires who are totally unknown to nineteenth-century historians: the reason for their obscurity could be that they were not powerful.

5. The author mentions that goodwill was probably excluded from the probate valuation of a business in nineteenth-century Britain most likely in order to

Pre-Thinking: A further complication is that probate valuations probably took no notice of a business’s goodwill (favor with the public) which, since it represents expectations about future profit-making, would today very often be a large fraction of market value.

(A) give an example of a business asset about which little was known in the nineteenth century
Error: Not relevant, off-topic.

(B) suggest that the probate valuations of certain businesses may have been significant underestimations of their true market value
True. Matches our pre-thinking.

(C) make the point that this exclusion probably had an equal impact on the probate valuations of all nineteenth-century British businesses
Error: One word off (“equal impact”)

(D) indicate that expectations about future profit-making is the single most important factor in determining the market value of certain businesses
Error: Too extreme (“single most important factor”)

(E) argue that the twentieth-century method of determining probate valuations of a business may be consistently superior to the nineteenth-century method
Error: Too extreme (“consistently superior”)


6. Which one of the following studies would provide support for Rubinstein’s claims?

Pre-Think: He claims that bankers contained more wealth (so something that says their assets are actually worth more when all else is considered certain based on the accounting gaps). Or that it is true that the rich are not the most powerful.

(A) a study that indicated that many members of the commercial elite in nineteenth-century London had insignificant holdings of real property

(B) a study that indicated that in the nineteenth century, industrialists from the north of England were in fact a target for working-class people

(C) a study that indicated that, in nineteenth-century Britain, probate values of goods for sale were not as high as probate values of cash assets

(D) a study that indicated that the wealth of nineteenth-century British industrialists did not appear to be significantly greater when the full value of their real property holdings was actually considered

(E) a study that indicated that at least some members of the official governing elite in nineteenth-century Britain owned more real property than had previously been thought to be the case


7. Which one of the following, if true, would cast the most doubt on Rubinstein’s argument concerning wealth and the official governing elite in nineteenth-century Britain?

Pre-Thinking: Rubinstein says wealthiest =/= most powerful because so many rich people were obscure. Argues that being obscure means lack of power. We’re looking for a truth that says that being wealth & powerful ARE correlated.

(A) Entry into this elite was more dependent on university attendance than on religious background.
Not mentioned. Might fall for it if you’re drawn by the list of “bishops, higher civil service…” etc.

(B) Attendance at a prestigious university was probably more crucial than a certain minimum family income in gaining entry into this elite.
Attendance to a certain school being a “more crucial” requirement doesn’t disprove his claim.

(C) Bishops as a group were somewhat wealthier, at the point of entry into this elite, than were higher civil servants or chairmen of manufacturing companies.
This answer choice compares the same group of “government elite” and doesn’t disprove Rubenstein.

(D) The families of many members of this elite owned few, if any, shares in iron industries and textile industries in the north of England.

(E) The composition of this elite included vice-chancellors, many of whom held office because of their wealth.

GMATNinja, can you please clarify why C is correct for Q1? I eliminated C because of its narrow focus. The disproval the orthodox view of the distribution of wealth and the relationship of wealth to power in nineteenth-century Britain has only been mentioned in the third paragraph. It contributes to the main idea. However, I did not think that this is the main theme of the passage. Can you please help to identify what I am missing in my approach?

Can someone please explain question 1, 3 and 6?
Specifically, havent understood question 6 as to why A is not the answer.

Question 1

To identify the main idea of a passage, start by figuring out why the author has written each paragraph, and how those paragraphs connect.

Here's that breakdown for this passage:

Paragraph 1: the author introduces a traditional view and Rubinstein's argument against this view.

• The traditional view: iron and textile manufacturers from the north of England became the wealthiest and most powerful people in society after about 1832
• The new view: Nope! Rubinstein thinks that the real wealth lay with the bankers and merchants of London.

Paragraph 2: The author presents Rubinstein's evidence to support his claim, and then states that this evidence does "not unequivocally make Rubinstein’s case."

Paragraph 3: The author introduces another way that Rubinstein challenges the traditional view.

• Paragraph 2 focused on the location of wealth, while this paragraph focuses on the connection between wealth and power.

Paragraph 4: The author discusses how Rubinstein is strengthening his argument, but concludes that "until further confirmatory investigation is done, his claims can only be considered partially convincing."

So, why did the author write this passage? To show how Rubinstein challenges a traditional view, and then to argue that this challenge isn't wholly convincing.

Here's (C):

This is spot-on! In paragraph 2, the author explores how Rubinstein's argument stacks up regarding the "distribution of wealth." In paragraph 3, the author discusses Rubinstein's view on "the relationship of wealth to power." In paragraph 4, the author reaffirms that this Rubinstein hasn't fully disproved the traditional view.

(C) is the correct answer to question 1.

I hope that helps!

Hi Sajjad,

How does "outdated" get the time frame wrong?

I inferred "outdated" from this portion: "A further complication is that probate valuations probably took no notice of a business’s goodwill (favor with the public) which, since it represents expectations about future profit-making, would today very often be a large fraction of market value."

The sentence points out that the records are outdated.

Please help me.

Can someone please explain the logic behind the correct answer of Question No.7?

You have wrongly interpreted it, it doesn't suggest anything about "outdated". The above quoted lines only suggest"ambiguity".