For many years, historians thought that the development of capitalism

Question

For many years, historians thought that the development of capitalism had not faced serious challenges in the United States. Writing in the early twentieth century,  Progressive historians  sympathized with the battles waged by farmers and small producers against large capitalists in the late nineteenth century, but they did not question the widespread acceptance of laissez-faire (unregulated) capitalism throughout American history. Similarly, Louis Hartz, who sometimes disagreed with the Progressives, argued that Americans accepted laissez-faire capitalism without challenge because they lacked a feudal, precapitalist past. Recently, however, some  scholars  have argued that even though laissez-faire became the prevailing ethos in nineteen-century America, it was not accepted without struggle. Laissez-faire capitalism, they suggest, clashed with existing religious and communitarian  norms  that imposed moral constraints on acquisitiveness to protect the weak from the predatory, the strong from corruption, and the entire culture from materialist excess. Buttressed by mercantilist notions that government should be both regulator and promoter of economic activity, these norms persisted long after the American Revolution helped unleash the economic forces that produced capitalism. These scholars argue that even in the late nineteenth century, with the government's role in the economy considerably diminished, laissez-faire had not triumphed completely. Hard times continued to revive popular demands for regulating business and softening the harsh edges of laissez-faire capitalism.    1 
 D 
 1. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) reveal the underlying similarities of certain arguments regarding the development of capitalism in the United States
(B) synthesize two competing arguments regarding the development of capitalism in the United States
(C) defend an established argument regarding the development of capitalism in the United States
(D) summarize a scholarly refutation of an argument regarding the development of capitalism in the United States
(E) discuss a new methodology for the study of the development of capitalism in the United States

2 
 E 
 2. According to the passage, the "Progressive historians" ( Highlighted ) and the "scholars" ( Highlighted ) disagree with regard to which of the following?

(A) Whether laissez-faire became the predominant ethos in the nineteenth-century United States
(B) Whether moral restraints on acquisitiveness were necessary in the nineteen-century United States
(C) The economic utility of mercantilist notions of government
(D) The nature of the historical conditions necessary for the development of laissez-faire capitalism in the nineteen-century United States
(E) The existence of significant opposition to the development of laissez-faire capitalism in the nineteen-century United States

3 
 A 
 3. The passage suggests that the "scholars" ( Highlighted ) would agree with which of the following statements regarding the “norms” ( Highlighted )

(A) They provided a primary source of opposition to the development of laissez-faire capitalism in the United States in the nineteenth century.
(B) Their appeal was undermined by difficult economic times in the United States at the end of the nineteenth century.
(C) They disappeared in the United States in the late nineteenth century because of the triumph of laissez-faire capitalism.
(D) They facilitated the successful implementation of mercantilist notions of government in the United States in the nineteenth-century.
(E) They are now recognized by historians as having been an important part of the ideology of the American Revolution.

4 
 4. The author of the passage mentions the Progressives as examples of historians who

A. saw farmers and small producers as having the potential to become a powerful force in American society
B. did not question the widespread acceptance of laissez-faire capitalism in the United States, in spite of their sympathy for farmers and small producers
C. did not agree that religious and communitarian norms were needed to soften the harsh edges of laissez-faire capitalism
D. saw the development of laissez-faire capitalism in the United States as a historical inevitability, in spite of their lack of sympathy for large capitalists
E. were somewhat out of the mainstream of the American historical profession

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Question 3 
 
 jawele  has already pointed out where the passage illustrates a clash between laissez-faire capitalism and "existing norms of religious and communitarian norms."

Here's how this fits into the passage:

Laissez-faire became the prevailing ethos in 19th century America. 
  However, laissez-faire was not accepted without a struggle. 
  And the thing that laissez-faire struggled against was these existing norms.

I'll also note that you've both referred to "the primary source of opposition" when evaluating choice (A).
However, this is NOT what answer choice (A) says.

Did you catch the difference?

Choice (A) refers to " a  primary source of opposition," not  the  primary source of opposition. This means these existing norms could be one of multiple primary sources of opposition (namely, the one the author chooses to highlight in this passage).

Aside from being a stickler for precise reading, here's why I bring this up: If we were dead set on confirming that these norms were  THE  one and only source of opposition, we might not find evidence in the passage to support that claim. Consequently, we might eliminate (A), when in fact it's the correct choice.

I'm not sure that's what was causing confusion in the first place, but in any case, I hope this breakdown helps!

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 2 
 
It means that these two groups of people disagree on something.

I'll offer an example that clarifies the usage of "disagree with" and "disagree with regard to":

"Jenny and Anu disagree with Bill's actions." Here, Jenny and Anu each disagree with Bill's actions. 
  "Jenny and Anu disagree with regard to Bill's actions." Here, Jenny and Anu disagree with each other. What are they disagreeing about? Bill's actions.

I hope this helps!

bvbouba · Answer

For a 1 paragraph passage, you should scan the passage for structural words/phrases. Here,  However  divides the passage into 2 opposite parts.

1) capitalism was accepted w/o challenges
progessive historian: don't question widespread acceptance of cap
L.H: similar view

2) However, some scholars: cap not accepted w/o struggle
 clash w religion + comm

gmatter0913 · Answer

The primary purpose of the passage is to
A.  reveal the underlying similarities  of certain arguments regarding the development
of capitalism in the United States
B.  synthesize two competing arguments  regarding the development of capitalism in
the United States
C.  defend an established argument  regarding the development of capitalism in the
United States
D. summarize a scholarly refutation of an argument regarding the development of
capitalism in the United States
E.  discuss a new methodology for the study of the development of capitalism  in the
United States

The passage is not doing any of the above bolded.
So the answer is the only remaining option D. 
D is in the ballpark, where when u read u may not feel this is the answer, but as you eliminate you become more confident.

toprasadcp · Answer

I am confused between B and D. Can anyone explain why is B incorrect? Is the passage not competitive arguments 1) Where it says capitalism didn't face any serious challenge ( veiw
endorsed by progressive historians ) and other where recently some scholars have found that laissez-faire was not accepted without struggle.

Kurtosis · Answer

1) The primary purpose of the passage is to

Initially the passage states that the development of capitalism had not faced serious challenges. The passage then goes about refuting this view by explaining the difficulties encountered in the development of capitalism.

Answer: D

2) According to the passage, the Progressive historians and the scholars mentioned in the highlighted texts disagree with regard to which of the following?

Refer: "progressive historians sympathized with the battles waged by farmers and small producers against large capitalists in the late nineteenth century, but they did not question the widespread acceptance of laissez-faire (unregulated) capitalism throughout American history."
"some scholars have argued that even though laissez-faire became the prevailing ethos in nineteen-century America, it was not accepted without struggle"

Answer: E

3) The passage suggests that the scholars mentioned in the highlighted text would agree with which of the following statements regarding the “norms” mentioned in the subsequent highlighted text?

The word 'norms' can be replaced by the word 'struggles'. The struggles that persisted long after the American Revolution helped in the development of capitalism.

Answer: A

AndreiGMAT · Answer

RC is tough for me. I spend 11 minutes on reading the passage and answering the questions. After that, I used the dictionary to look up for the challenging words and read the passage second time.

Back to your question, regarding B and D:

First, let's summarize the content of the passage. 
 For many years, historians thought that the development of capitalism had not faced serious challenges in the United States  - here is the argument with a prevailing belief of historians that road to capitalist was   easy  .

But then, some scholars argue that development of capitalist was not easy, rather it experienced serious   challenges  :
- was not accepted without struggle
- even in the late nineteenth century ... laissez-faire  had not triumphed  completely

In other words, some folks thought that path to capitalism was easy, but the other folks disagreed and refuted the argument providing examples in the second part of the passage.
So what is the author doing in the passage?

B: Is the author combining/synthesizing the arguments from scholars? No. In the passage the competing arguments are contrasted, rather than synthesized. Think about it this way. The second argument totally denies the first argument, thus the two arguments cannot coexist. Hence, the arguments are not synthesized.

D: Is the author summarizing a scholarly refutation? Yes. The passage talks about the two schools, and the second school denies the argument of the first school. Furthermore, The second part of the passage is filled with evidences to support the claim of the second school and thus refute the argument of the first school. Hence, the main idea of the passage is to refute the argument.

Just my opinion.

Skywalker18 · Answer

Took 6 mins 30 seconds , including 2 mins 15 seconds to read
-The author talks about how certain views by historians were probably not entirely valid
- He then talks about the work of some workers who have refuted the views of the historians

1. Answer D

2. "Recently, however, some scholars have argued that even though laissez-faire became the prevailing ethos in nineteen-century America, it was not accepted without struggle"
Answer E

3."Laissez-faire capitalism, they suggest, clashed with existing religious and communitarian norms"
Answer A

askul2389 · Answer

Why option B is wrong in 1st question (Primary purpose of passage) ?

Kurtosis · Answer

There are 3 arguments --> 1) Progressive historians 2) Louis Hartz 3) Some scholars

The scholars don't synthesize the arguments of Progressive historians and Louis Hartz.

Rather, the scholars oppose the arguments made by the Prog. historians and Louis Hartz regarding the development of Laize Faire Capitalism.

Hence the answer is D and not B.

Hope it helps.

mihir0710 · Answer

GMAT does NOT feature such short passages and easy questions these days ...

Answers : 
1. D : refer to the yellow highlighted text ...
2. E : Refer to the underlined text in the passage ...
3. A : Refer red italic text in the passage ...

MadaraU · Answer

can someone please explain how come answer to 2nd question is E. Clearly scholars agreed that " it was not accepted without a struggle".

"Recently, however, some scholars have argued that even though laissez-faire became the prevailing ethos in nineteen-century America, it was not accepted without struggle"

Boomshockalocka · Answer

GMATNinja

Hi GMATNinja, could you please help explain Q1 and Q3?

In Q1, the passage presented two contrasted arguments. How can the primary purpose be "summarize a scholarly refutation of an argument"? And when faced with this type of questions, eg. the passages discussed two competing arguments, how should I determine whether the primary purpose of the passage is to contrast the two arguments or to present the second argument?

In Q3 Choice A, the scholars only used the "norms" as evidence to refute the previous argument but didn't indicate that the "norms" are the primary source. Could you please explain this why A is correct and D is not?

With much appreciation!

robu1 · Answer

what is the actual interpretation of Option B :B.  synthesize two competing arguments  regarding the development of capitalism in
the United States.

deddex · Answer

Even I had chosen B earlier, so synthesize means to mix or combine (apart from the chemical meaning of synthesis)

The author doesn't combine the P - Historians & Scholars beliefs / instead he tries to say one opposes the other
Hence D is the correct answer choice here.

willacethis · Answer

GMATNinja   GMATNinja Two  egmat

In question 3, how do we figure out that the norms are the "primary" source of opposition?

Thanks!

jawele · Answer

Hi I'll start with the relevant part of the text: "<...>, however, some scholars have argued that <...> , it was not accepted without struggle. <...> capitalism, they suggest, clashed with existing religious and communitarian norms " The first sentence in my quotation is the main claim of the scholars who argue against long held ideas about capitalism. The second sentence is the main evidence of those scholars to support their stance. From this "structure" we can infer that this is the "primary" source of opposition. But you can also look from a different angle, it's actually one reasonable explanation that those scholars employ to bolster their case. So there isn't anything else to reasonably hold on to in order to treat something else as opposition. I hope this helps

vikhyathsuvarna · Answer

I have a doubt in the second question. I am not able to understand what does it mean. Does it mean that "Progressive Historians" and "Scholars" both disagree about something or does it mean that "Progressive Historians" disagree with "Scholars" about something.

vikhyathsuvarna · Answer

I have doubt in the second question. What does it really mean? Does it mean that "Progressive Historians" and "Scholars" both disagree on something or Does it mean that "Progressive Historians" disagree with "Scholars" on something.

For many years, historians thought that the development of capitalism

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

For many years, historians thought that the development of capitalism

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