Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized for You
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Christina scored 760 by having clear (ability) milestones and a trackable plan to achieve the same. Attend this webinar to learn how to build trackable milestones that leverage your strengths to help you get to your target GMAT score.
Join a free live webinar and learn the winning strategy for a 700+ score on GMAT & the perfect application. Save your spot today! Wednesday, March 27th at 3 pm PST
For the writers who first gave feudalism its name, the existence of fe
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Jul 2010, 05:59
6
32
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
95% (hard)
Question Stats:
34% (02:36) correct 66% (02:37) wrong based on 1669 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
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.
Re: For the writers who first gave feudalism its name, the existence of fe
[#permalink]
Show Tags
29 May 2014, 22:14
19
5
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.
_________________
Karishma Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Re: For the writers who first gave feudalism its name, the existence of fe
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Jan 2016, 06:52
5
souvik101990 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.
Three lines that helped me choose the right answer
-> the existence of feudalism presupposed the existence of a noble class -> and there cannot be a noble class, unless both the titles and the inheritance of such titles are sanctioned by law -> but the passage says feudalism already existed in eighth century ( Although feudalism existed in Europe as early as the eighth century) but inheritance of titles was not applicable till 12th century.
So the paradox is how can statement 1 and statement 3 be true at same time.
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 725
Location: Singapore
Concentration: General Management, Finance
Schools:Chicago Booth - Class of 2015
Re: For the writers who first gave feudalism its name, the existence of fe
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Jul 2010, 07:41
2
1
Conclusion :
The coexistence of feudalism and noble class is NOT to be treated causal in nature. Law is required to sanction titles of nobility. However its not true that existence of feudalism required the existence of noble class.
Re: For the writers who first gave feudalism its name, the existence of fe
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Jul 2010, 21:32
1
I pick E, but I think I understand why A is right now.
Argument:
History: Feudalism is in the same time with noble class, in 8th century. Nobility, first appear in 12th century.
A - Nobility appear first Feudalism is wrong according to history ==> Like what the argument said
B - Dominant class could be king, knights... we don't know, so we can't say for sure feudaslim functioned without a dominant class -> WRONG
C - Societal group and social class were not discussed -> Out of scope -> WRONG
D - "The only cause" -> Too extreme, without proper evidence in the argument -> WRONG
E - Feudal institutions is a prerequisite of nobility -> sound like Feudal is a MUST for nobility to happen, there is no evidence in the argument suggest that -> WRONG
Re: For the writers who first gave feudalism its name, the existence of fe
[#permalink]
Show Tags
16 Oct 2016, 07:38
1
"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." so feudalism appears first and then comes the nobility titles and the reverse will be distort the history------>A
_________________
Re: For the writers who first gave feudalism its name, the existence of fe
[#permalink]
Show Tags
23 Jul 2017, 11:20
souvik101990 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.
I think I've seen this in the official guide. Brilliant question none the less. The key to answering this was understanding the link between the premises. If you missed it, you're most likely picking B as I was tempted to do, before I gathered myself and re-read my notes.
Writers presupposed the existence of a noble class. BUT, noble class cannot exist unless sanctioned by law. Feudalism however, existed as early as 8th century, BUT was only recognised by 12th century.
Writers say for 'F' to exist, 'NC' must have always existed. BUT 'F' existed by 8th century, and was only recognised by 12th century.
A - 'F' requires 'NC' to exist goes against history. KEEP. B - dominant classes could have existed prior to 8th century, they just might not have been recognised. OUT. A is better. C - Legal status is not equal to social class. Same as B really. OUT. D - Only cause? This is over-stretching. OUT. E - Existence of institution is neither under discussion, nor a necessity. OUT.
Re: For the writers who first gave feudalism its name, the existence of fe
[#permalink]
Show Tags
08 Sep 2018, 01:34
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!
Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).
Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________
close
34% (02:36) correct 
