1. The author of the passage implies that had the lull in the Thirty Years' War ceased more abruptly then
A. the tulip mania would have likely spread throughout other parts of Europe
B. the price of tulips would not have become separated from the intrinsic worth of the flower
C. the price of the tulips would have fallen at a similar rate, if not even more steeply
D. the drop in the number of tulips traded would not have been as significant
E. the aristocracy would have likely suffered significant losses as a result of the tulip trade
Text ExplanationAccording to the passage, the lull in the Thirty Years War led to an increase in demand. So the rise in the demand for tulips was expected. The passage says that the prices of tulips suddenly fell, though there was still a lull in the war. Thus, we can infer that the lull did not cause the drop in prices. Had the lull suddenly stopped—as the question asks—then the prices most likely would have still fallen. And since the start of war would have brought about a general drop in demand, the demand for tulips may have fallen even more quickly. This matches up best with (C).
(A) is not supported by the passage. If anything, the passage suggests the opposite: tulip mania would have spread throughout Europe.
(B) is wrong. The war starting up again would not affect the rise in prices of tulips since the price was already falling, regardless of the status of the war.
(D) is effectively the opposite of what (C) is saying. (D) is wrong because we would expect the drop to be the same or even greater.
(E) is worded unpleasantly and refers to the aristocracy again. We have no support in the passage with regards to the aristocracy and there hold on the tulip industry, so we can eliminate (E).
FAQ: What does this sentence mean: "The passage says that the prices of tulips suddenly fell, though there was still a lull in the war"?A: First, a "lull" is a pause. So, a lull in the war = a pause in the war.
The author of the passage implies that had the lull in the Thirty Year’s War ceased more abruptly then the price of the tulips would have fallen at a similar rate, if not even more steeply.
This can be re-written as:
The author of the passage implies that if the lull in the Thirty Year’s War had ceased more abruptly then the price of the tulips would have fallen at a similar rate, if not even more steeply.
This sentence expresses an "if" conditional.
the price of the tulips would have fallen at a similar rate, if not even more steeply.
This is saying that either the price of tulips would have fallen at a similar rate, orthe price would have fallen even more steeply.
How do we know this is true? The passage says:
For one, the increases of the 1630s corresponded with a lull in the Thirty Years' War, which occurred between 1618 and 1648. Hence market prices were responding rationally to a rise in demand. However, the fall in prices was faster and more dramatic than the rise, and did not result from a sudden resurgence in the war.
So, prices went up when the war stopped (a lull in the war = a stop in the war). Demand rose during peacetime.
However, prices suddenly went down very suddenly, even though the war had not started yet.
The question asks us what would have happened to prices if the war had started again sooner. Well, we know that demand went up because the war stopped. Thus we can infer that demand would go down if the war started again. Therefore, if the war had started sooner, prices would have gone down just as much, or even more, than they actually had.