rohitgoel15 wrote:
For the writers who first gave feudalism its name, the existence of feudalism presupposed the existence of a noble class. Yet there cannot be a noble class, properly speaking, unless both the titles that indicate superior, noble status and the inheritance of such titles are sanctioned by law. Although feudalism existed in Europe as early as the eighth century, it was not until the twelfth century, when many feudal institutions were in decline, that the hereditary transfer of legally recognized titles of nobility first appeared.
The statements above, if true, most strongly support which one of the following claims?
(A) To say that feudalism by definition requires the existence of a nobility is to employ a definition that distorts history.
(B) Prior to the twelfth century, the institution of European feudalism functioned without the presence of a dominant class.
(C) The fact that a societal group has a distinct legal status is not in itself sufficient to allow that group to be properly considered a social class.
(D) The decline of feudalism in Europe was the only cause of the rise of a European nobility.
(E) The prior existence of feudal institutions is a prerequisite for the emergence of a nobility, as defined in the strictest sense of the term.
Here is the argument in simple words:
First, you must understand what feudalism is. Here is an excerpt from the online dictionary:
Feudalism: A system of obligations that bound lords and their subjects in Europe during much of the Middle Ages. In theory, the king owned all or most of the land and gave it to his leading nobles in return for their loyalty and military service. The nobles in turn held land that peasants, including serfs, were allowed to farm in return for the peasants' labor and a portion of their produce. Under feudalism, people were born with a permanent position in society.
It is the legal and social system that evolved in W Europe in the 8th and 9th centuries, in which vassals were protected and maintained by their lords, usually through the granting of fiefs, and were required to serve under them in war...
Here is what the author tells you:
For writers who coined the term feudalism, existence of noble class was a must. Yet, the author says that legal sanction of status and inheritance of titles are a must to have a noble class. The author also says that feudalism existed in 8th century but inheritance of titles got legalized only in 12th century. The issue then is that how can "feudalism - the way it is defined" exist in 8th century if title inheritance was not legal at that time. So as far as actual history is concerned, existence of a nobility (status and title inheritance) cannot be necessary
Hence (A) makes complete sense.
(A) To say that feudalism by definition requires the existence of a nobility is to employ a definition that distorts history.
As for (C),
(C) The fact that a societal group has a distinct legal status is not in itself sufficient to allow that group to be properly considered a social class.
This cannot be inferred from the argument. The argument tells us that legal status is necessary to consider a societal group a social class. Whether it is sufficient or not, we do not know. Also, the argument only talks about the noble class; we don't know whether it holds for all social classes.