A conventional view of nineteenth-century Britain holds that iron

Question

A conventional view of nineteenth-century Britain holds that iron manufacturers and textile manufacturers from the north of England became the wealthiest and most powerful people in society after about 1832. According to Marxist historians, these industrialists were the target of the working class in its struggle for power. A new study by Rubinstein, however, suggests that the real wealth lay with the bankers and merchants of London. Rubinstein does not deny that a northern industrial elite existed but argues that it was consistently outnumbered and outdone by a London-based commercial elite. His claims are provocative and deserve consideration.

Rubinstein’s claim about the location of wealth comes from his investigation of probate records. These indicate the value of personal property, excluding real property (buildings and land), left by individuals at death. 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. However, such records do not unequivocally make Rubinstein’s case. Uncertainties abound about how the probate rules for valuing assets were actually applied. Mills and factories, being real property, were clearly excluded: machinery may also have been, for the same reason. What the valuation conventions were for stock-in-trade (goods for sale) is also uncertain. It is possible that their probate values were much lower than their actual market value: cash or near-cash, such as bank balances or stocks, were, on the other hand, invariably considered at full face value. 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. Whether factors like these introduced systematic biases into the probate valuations of individuals with different types of businesses would be worth investigating.

The orthodox view that the wealthiest individuals were the most powerful is also questioned by Rubinstein’s study. 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. Indeed, Rubinstein dismisses any notion that great wealth had anything to do with entry into the governing elite, as represented by bishops, higher civil servants, and chairmen of manufacturing companies. The only requirements were university attendance and a father with a middle-class income.

Rubinstein, in another study, has begun to buttress his findings about the location of wealth by analyzing income tax returns, which reveal a geographical distribution of middle-class incomes similar to that of wealthy incomes revealed by probate records. But until further confirmatory investigation is done, his claims can only be considered partially convincing.   1 
 1. The main idea of the passage is that

(A) the Marxist interpretation of the relationship between class and power in nineteenth-century Britain is no longer viable
(B) a simple equation between wealth and power is unlikely to be supported by new data from nineteenth-century British archives
(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
(D) probate records provide the historian with a revealing but incomplete glimpse of the extent and location of wealth in nineteenth-century Britain
(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

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

3 
 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
(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

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

(A) The distribution of great wealth between commerce and industry was not equal.
(B) Large incomes were typically made in alcohol and tobacco rather than in textiles and metal.
(C) A London-based commercial elite can be identified.
(D) An official governing elite can be identified.
(E) There was a necessary relationship between great wealth and power.

5 
 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

(A) give an example of a business asset about which little was known in the nineteenth century
(B) suggest that the probate valuations of certain businesses may have been significant underestimations of their true market value
(C) make the point that this exclusion probably had an equal impact on the probate valuations of all nineteenth-century British businesses
(D) indicate that expectations about future profit-making is the single most important factor in determining the market value of certain businesses
(E) argue that the twentieth-century method of determining probate valuations of a business may be consistently superior to the nineteenth-century method

6 
 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

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

(A) Entry into this elite was more dependent on university attendance than on religious background.
(B) Attendance at a prestigious university was probably more crucial than a certain minimum family income in gaining entry into this elite.
(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.
(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.

auradediligodo · Accepted Answer

Hi everyone,
Took around 18 minutes and got 5/7 correct. Took 5 minutes to read, write down paragraphs summaries and main point.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P1 
Paragraph 1 expresses a contrast between the following parts:
#1 A long held vision according to which the wealth in the 19th century belonged primarily to iron and textile manufacturers from north England. This view is supported by Marxists historians
#2 Rubestein's claim according to which most of the wealth belonged to merchants and bankers of London.

P2 
Paragraph 2 is divided in two parts that are in contrast one with the other.
Part 1: it discusses the source from which Rubenstein draws its claim: the probate record. This record suggests that the commercial area was fairly more profitable than the industrial area and that within the industry a greater wealth comes from the sales of tobacco and alcohol rather than textiles or metal

Part 2:
The second part doubts the soundness of the evidence used by Rubensteins for the following reasons:
-Mills and factories were excluded by probate records
-valuation convention for stock i trade is uncertain
-probate valuations probably took no notice of a business’s goodwill

P3 
Paragraph 3 talks about Rubenstein's claim according to which wealth and power are not related. The reason according to Rubenstein is that very rich people were unknown. In addition Rubenstein claims that in order to access a job that incorporates power the only requirement is university and a father with middle class income.

P4 
Paragraph 4 talks about a further study conducted by Rubenstein. The study focuses on tax return but until further evidence is presented the study is not convincing

MP  
Discuss Rubenstein's interesting study by highlighting his findings and analyse some cons of this study

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 . The main idea of the passage is that

Pre-thinking: 
  Main point question. 
Refer to main point above

(A) the Marxist interpretation of the relationship between class and power in nineteenth-century Britain is no longer viable
 Marxists historians are cited briefly in P1. Hence incorrect

(B) a simple equation between wealth and power is unlikely to be supported by new data from nineteenth-century British archives
 Out of scope. Hence incorrect

(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
 Rubenstein's study is indeed recent; it has challenged but not disproved the orthodox view of the distribution of wealth and the relationship of wealth to power in nineteenth-century Britain. Hence correct

(D) probate records provide the historian with a revealing but incomplete glimpse of the extent and location of wealth in nineteenth-century Britain
 Probate records are the evidence used by Rubenstein to make his claim but cannot be the main point. Hence incorrect

(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
 "confirmation is likely to be elusive" is something not discussed in the passage. Hence incorrect

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Pre-thinking: 
  Assumption question .
Refer to P2 to answer this question and especially to "However, such records do not unequivocally make Rubinstein’s case. Uncertainties abound about how the probate rules for valuing assets were actually applied."
The author believes that the probate records are incomplete and spends some time discussing why this is the case. Any answer choice in line with this reasoning will be our correct choice

(A) self-contradictory and misleading
 Nowhere mentioned this aspect. Hence incorrect

(B) ambiguous and outdated
 Nowhere mentioned this aspect. Hence incorrect

(C) controversial but readily available
 Nowhere mentioned this aspect. Hence incorrect

(D)   revealing but difficult to interpret
 The author indeed thinks that probate records are useful but she has some reservations about it. Hence correct

(E) widely used by historians but fully understandable only by specialists
 Nowhere mentioned this aspect. Hence incorrect

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: 
  Inference question 
Let's refer to P2.
"What the valuation conventions were for stock-in-trade (goods for sale) is also uncertain."

(A)   affected by the valuation conventions for such goods
 We can see how this choice has the same line of reasoning as the portion of the passage mentioned in pre-thinking has. Hence correct

(B) less accurate than the valuations for such goods provided by income tax returns
 Cannot be inferred by the information in the passage. Plus tax returns are mentioned in another context, P4. Hence incorrect

(C) less, on average, if such goods were tobacco-related than if they were alcohol-related
 Cannot be inferred by the information in the passage. Tobacco and alcohol are out of context. Hence incorrect

(D) greater, on average, than the total probate valuations of those individuals who held bank balances
 Cannot be inferred by the information in the passage. hence incorrect

(E) dependent on whether such goods were held by industrialists or by merchants or bankers
 Cannot be inferred by the information in the passage. Hence incorrect

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Pre-thinking: 
  Detail question. 
Let's read the answer choices

(A) The distribution of great wealth between commerce and industry was not equal.
 Not answered. Hence incorrect

(B) Large incomes were  typically  made in alcohol and tobacco rather than in textiles and metal.
 Not answered.
"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"
 Hence incorrect

(C) A London-based commercial elite can be identified.
 Not answered. Hence incorrect

(D) An official governing elite can be identified.
 Not answered. Hence incorrect

(E)   There was a necessary relationship between great wealth and power.
 "The orthodox view that the wealthiest individuals were the most powerful is also questioned by Rubinstein’s study. "
Correct

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: 
  Purpose question 
"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 purpose is to highlight how this factor could actually have an important market value

(A) give an example of a business asset about which little was known in the nineteenth century
 Not in line with pre-thinking. Hence incorrect

(B)   suggest that the probate valuations of certain businesses may have been significant underestimations of their true market value
 In line with pre-thinking. Hence correct

(C) make the point that this exclusion probably had an equal impact on the probate valuations of all nineteenth-century British businesses
 Not in line with pre-thinking. Hence incorrect

(D) indicate that expectations about future profit-making is the single most important factor in determining the market value of certain businesses
 Not in line with pre-thinking. Hence incorrect

(E) argue that the twentieth-century method of determining probate valuations of a business may be consistently superior to the nineteenth-century method
 Not in line with pre-thinking. Hence incorrect

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6 . Which one of the following studies would provide support for Rubinsteinâ€™s claims?

Pre-thinking: 
  Strengthen question. 
Let's treat this question as well as we would do in CR.
A general conclusion made by Rubenstein could be: "probate records are meaningful way to examine wealth"
Now this conclusion should be based on a very important assumption that goes against what the author said in the second paragraph.
Assumption: "Probate records reflect actual wealth and do not undermine any other significant factor in order to establish the amount of wealth owned by someone"

(A) a study that indicated that many members of the commercial elite in nineteenth-century London had insignificant holdings of real property
 Not in line with pre-thinking. Hence incorrect

(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
 Not in line with pre-thinking. Hence incorrect

(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
 Not in line with pre-thinking. Hence incorrect

(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
 In line with pre-thinking. Hence correct

(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
 Not in line with pre-thinking. Hence incorrect

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Pre-thinking: 
  Weaken question 
this elite is discussed in the second last paragraph. 
According to Rubenstein the people belonging to this elite did not need to be wealthy. So any statement suggesting wealth as a requirement will be a weakener.

(A) Entry into this elite was more dependent on university attendance than on religious background.
 Not in line with pre-thinking. Hence incorrect

(B) Attendance at a prestigious university was probably more crucial than a certain minimum family income in gaining entry into this elite.
 Not in line with pre-thinking. Hence incorrect

(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.
 Not in line with pre-thinking. Hence incorrect

(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.
 Not in line with pre-thinking. Hence incorrect

(E)   The composition of this elite included vice-chancellors, many of whom held office because of their wealth.
 This answer links an elite position job to wealth as a requirement. Hence correct

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is a good day to be alive, cheers!

srishti201996 · Answer

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?

srishti201996 · Answer

6. Which one of the following studies would provide support for Rubinsteinâ€TMs 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!

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

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?

Difficulty Level:   600

Explanation

We’re asked to pick the scenario that would cast the most doubt on Rubinstein’s argument about the connection between wealth and power. Well, as para 3 tells us, Rubinstein argues that there was no such connection in 19th-century Britain: Wealth, in other words, didn’t automatically give one power, and lack of wealth didn’t automatically exclude one from power. So, if it was to be shown that there was indeed some sort of tangible connection between wealth and power—that possession of wealth did lead to power—this would certainly weaken Rubinstein’s argument.  (E)  makes this connection, and therefore casts the most doubt on Rubinstein’s wealth-power hypothesis.

(A)  To enter the ruling elite, according to Rubinstein, one needed only two things: a university degree and a father with a middle-class income.  (A) , therefore, would tend to strengthen, rather than weaken, Rubinstein’s argument.

(B) and (C)  present irrelevant comparisons.  (B)  compares the relative importance of the two factors Rubinstein claims are prerequisites for power; but Rubinstein never compares them with each other, so nothing about this damages his claim. Maybe schooling is more crucial than income, maybe the other way around, who knows? As for  (C) , the wealth of powerful bishops compared with that of powerful civil servants and company bosses is also irrelevant. These powerful bishops may have had a little more dough than the other members of the elite, but that doesn’t mean they were truly wealthy by societal standards. In other words, the fact that they were a little better off financially than the others doesn’t weaken Rubinstein’s opposition to the claim that power resides in the hands of society’s wealthiest.

(D) , if anything, tends to weaken the traditional Marxist claim, not Rubinstein’s argument. The Marxists are the ones who saw the textile and iron barons of the north as the power elite, the ones against which the workers waged their battle.

Answer: E

Hope it helps

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

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

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

In the first part of the  second paragraph , the author notes that probate records provide interesting information about the distribution of wealth in 19th-century Britain. But in the remainder of the para, he or she notes that there are a number of problems concerning the correct interpretation of these records. So choice  (D)  is the answer—it touches both bases.

(A), (B), (C)  Remember, the author thinks that probate records are eye-opening, though hard to interpret. Of  (A), (B) and (C) , only (B)’s  “ambiguous”  and (C)’s  “controversial”  capture a sense of this feeling. But the second parts of these choices don’t fit the bill:  “outdated”  gets the time frame wrong, and  “readily available”  is outside the scope of the issue.  (A) , meanwhile, is way too critical.

(E)  Rubinstein, as far as we know, is the only historian to have worked with these records. Moreover, the author never says or implies that only specialists are able to decipher them.

Answer: D

Hope it helps

anothermillenial · Answer

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.  .

(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  ” 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 t he 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.

tkorzhan1995 · Answer

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?

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

1. The main idea of the passage is that

Difficulty Level:   650

Explanation

First up is a typical Global question, so we’re looking for the choice that captures both the content and point of view of the entire passage. Now, as we just finished saying, this passage is about Rubinstein’s theory of the distribution of wealth and power in 19th-century Britain, a theory the author finds intriguing, but still insufficiently documented to displace the traditional view of 19th-century Britain.  (C)  is the closest to this.

(A)  contradicts the author’s message: Rubinstein’s theory, according to our author, is not strong enough to overturn the traditional, Marxist interpretation of history. Besides, this passage is primarily about Rubinstein’s theory, not about the Marxist view of history.

(B)  is out because the author never tells us what sort of relationship between wealth and power he or she expects to find in new data. Additionally, this choice completely misses the message of the passage, which (again) is that a new theory has emerged to challenge the orthodox view of 19th-century Britain.

(D)  is a true statement: The passage says that probate records are indeed a revealing, though imperfect, source of information about the location of wealth in 19th-century Britain. The problem with  (D)  is that it’s simply too narrow in scope to qualify as the big idea of the passage—a discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of examining probate records is limited to the second para.

(E)  is also too narrow. Furthermore, the author never says that confirmation of Rubinstein’s theory  “is likely to remain elusive” ; to say that Rubinstein hasn’t gotten it 100% right yet is not to predict that he won’t someday.

Answer: C

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Official Explanation

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

Difficulty Level:   650-700

Explanation

We’re interested in whether the author thinks that probate records accurately reflect the value of 19th-century  “goods for sale.”  This issue comes up in  lines 28-34 , where the author more or less tells us that probate values for such goods may have been dependent upon valuation conventions. That’s (A).

(B)  is out for the simple reason that the author never draws a comparison between the accuracy of probate and income tax records.

(C)  is out because the author never draws a comparison between tobacco- and alcohol-related goods. As a matter of fact, the only thing the author says about tobacco and alcohol is that people in these industries tended to make more money than people in textiles or metals.

(D)  180!  Lines 30-34  tell us that  choice (D)  is the opposite of what the author believes: Probate values for bank balances were higher.

(E)  The author never implies that valuation conventions for goods for sale were dependent upon a person’s occupation. Rather, the author says that general probate valuations, in contrast to goods for sale valuations may have been affected by occupation: but that’s a completely different story.

Answer: A

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

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

Difficulty Level:   700

Explanation

Now we need to determine which of five studies would support Rubinstein’s claims. Rubinstein makes two basic claims:  (1)  true wealth was in the hands of a commercial elite in London, not in the hands of a northern industrial elite, and  (2)  there was no direct link between wealth and power. So, we’re looking for a study that would support one or both of these claims.

(D)  fits the bill: Rubinstein’s claim about the location of wealth, after all, rests on probate records, which don’t include the value of real property. If it were to be discovered that real property did not, in fact, add to the riches of industrialists, this finding would tend to confirm Rubinstein’s belief that true wealth lay in the hands of a London-based commercial elite.

(A)  would tend to undermine Rubinstein’s claim that real wealth in 19th-century Britain was in the hands of a London-based commercial elite.

(B)  A study that indicated that northern industrialists were a target for working-class people would support the traditional, Marxist view of 19th-century Britain. This view, as we know, is opposed by Rubinstein.

(C) , too, would tend to undermine Rubinstein’s claims: If the probate values of goods for sale in that era were found to be lower than probate values of cash assets, this would indicate that industrialists had more wealth in comparison to members of the commercial elite than Rubinstein seems to think. That is, this would tend to confirm one of the uncertainties that the author suggests could limit the value of Rubinstein’s theory.

(E) , on the other hand, would tend to undermine Rubinstein’s claim that there was no connection between money and power.

Answer: D

GMATNinja · 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!

Rickooreoisb · Answer

egmat

Apologies to make you read this long passage. I need your help in addressing one doubt.

For question 2

Para 2: The author notes that probate records omit major categories of wealth (like real estate, stock, commercial property).
This means: if you only rely on probate inventories, you miss chunks of wealth.
Author’s phrasing: “there is no certainty how these omitted assets were valued” > the concern is about valuation adequacy, not that the documents are impossible to interpret.

The conclusion: Rubinstein’s data has systematic gaps that could bias his results.
So the author isn’t saying probate records are difficult to read. The problem is that they’re inadequate because of what they omit and how missing parts were valued.

Option D: “Probate records are difficult to interpret ...”

The passage never claims they’re hard to interpret. It’s about incomplete representation of wealth (omissions, valuation uncertainties). That’s a critique of adequacy, not interpretability.

Coming to Option C

(C) controversial but readily available

Controversial: When the author points out that many valuations—such as those of real estate and stocks—were not considered, and that we do not know how they were assessed, it becomes controversial that Rubinstein was still able to use this as a data source. 
Readily available - The information was available, though how readily is questionable. Between options C and D, I leaned toward C, because Option D suggests that probate records are difficult to interpret, whereas in reality, they are not. Analysis was possible, and the valuation gap was identified—something that would not have been possible if the records were genuinely difficult to interpret.

Uncertainties abound”  = there are many unknowns, doubts, or unresolved issues. It points to  lack of clarity in facts or reliability of data , not in the ability to interpret the records themselves.
  “Difficult to interpret”  = the material itself is hard to read, understand, or analyze (e.g., messy handwriting, ambiguous legal terms, missing context).

egmat · Answer

Rickooreoisb  That's okay. I'd love to help you-  you're absolutely right to choose Option C over Option D.  Your analysis of the difference between "uncertainties abound" and "difficult to interpret" is spot-on.

Key Distinction You've Correctly Identified:

"Difficult to interpret"  (Option D) would mean:
 
 The records themselves are hard to read or understand 
 Rubinstein couldn't make sense of them 
 The data is ambiguous or unclear

"Uncertainties abound"  (what the passage actually says) means:
 
 Questions about  methodology  - what was included/excluded 
 Doubts about  valuation conventions  - how assets were valued 
 Concerns about  systematic biases  - whether the data represents reality

Why This Proves Option C is Correct:

"Readily available"  - Yes, because Rubinstein successfully used them to make his case
 "Controversial"  - Yes, because the author spends an entire paragraph questioning their reliability

The passage never suggests Rubinstein had trouble  reading  or  understanding  the records. He interpreted them just fine - the author's concern is whether those interpretations are  valid  given what the records omit.

Strategic Pattern Recognition: 
GMAT wrong answers often conflate related but distinct concepts. Watch for this pattern:
 
  Methodological critique  ≠  Accessibility problem  
  Incomplete data  ≠  Incomprehensible data   
  Questionable validity  ≠  Difficult interpretation

When you see "uncertainties," "questions about," or "it is possible that" in RC passages, the author is raising  doubts about reliability , not claiming the source is unreadable.

You can practice similar questions  here , if you'd like. These are official questions- you can select Reading Comprehension under Verbal and choose Medium/Hard level questions to cement your learning on these questions.

sashankmvv1234 · Answer

Don't you think option C is too narrow? while it is 100% true but Rubinson tries to disprove two theories and author analyzes both the theories. Option C in the end only covers about second theory which isthe relation blw power and wealth.

guddo · Answer

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

The author says Rubinstein uses probate records to argue wealth was concentrated in London. The records do suggest commerce produced more large fortunes, but the author stresses that probate values may be biased because of unclear valuation rules and exclusions (real property, possibly machinery, uncertain treatment of stock-in-trade, and ignoring goodwill). So the records contain useful clues but are hard to read correctly.

(A) self-contradictory and misleading

The passage does not say the records contradict themselves. It says they may be biased or incomplete, not internally inconsistent.

(B) ambiguous and outdated

They are ambiguous in application, yes, but “outdated” is not the point. The problem is interpretation and potential systematic bias, not that the source is obsolete.

(C) controversial but readily available

Availability is never discussed. “Controversial” is also not the author’s focus; the focus is uncertainty in how to interpret the numbers.

(D) revealing but difficult to interpret

This matches exactly. The records “do seem” to show certain patterns (revealing), but they “do not unequivocally” prove the case because valuation rules and exclusions create major interpretive uncertainty (difficult to interpret).  This is the implied view.

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

The passage does not mention how widely used probate records are, nor does it suggest only specialists can understand them.

Answer: (D)

A conventional view of nineteenth-century Britain holds that iron

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

A conventional view of nineteenth-century Britain holds that iron

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards