Historian: Fifteenth-century advances in mapmaking contributed to the

Question

Historian: Fifteenth-century advances in mapmaking contributed to the rise of modern nation-states. In medieval Europe (from the fifth to the fifteenth century), sovereignty centered in cities and towns and radiated outward, with boundaries often ambiguously defined. The conceptual shift toward the modern state began in the late fifteenth century, when mapmakers learned to reflect geography accurately by basing maps on latitude-longitude grids. By the mid-seventeenth century, nearly all maps showed boundary lines.

Which of the following would, if true, most strengthen the historian's reasoning?

(A) Borders did not become codified in Europe until certain treaties were signed in the early nineteenth century.
(B) During the medieval period, various authorities in Europe claimed power over collections of cities and towns, not contiguous territories.
(C) Many members of the political elite collected maps as a hobby during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.
(D) Seventeenth-century treatises and other sources of political authority describe areas of sovereignty rather than illustrate them using maps.
(E) During the fifteenth century in Europe, mapmakers simplified the borders of sovereignty by drawing clear lines of demarcation between political powers.

CR79751.01
OG2020 NEW QUESTION

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

The author concludes that "Fifteenth-century advances in mapmaking contributed to the rise of modern nation-states."

His/her reasoning is that:
  BEFORE the 15th century, sovereignty centered in cities/towns, radiated outward, and had poorly defined borders 
 DURING the 15th century, mapmakers learned to create more accurate maps 
 AFTER the 15th century (by the 17th century), nearly all maps showed boundary lines

(E) nicely fills a gap in the author's reasoning. From the analysis above, we can see that he/she concluded somehow that:

better maps in the 15th century + maps having boundary lines in the 17th century = better maps  contributed  to the rise of nation-states

Without further information, the link between improved mapmaking skills and the rise of nation states is pretty weak -- we know that the mapmaking improvements occurred BEFORE the implementation of boundary lines, but there is little to show that better maps somehow  contributed to  this geopolitical phenomenon.

(E) tells us specifically that 15th century mapmakers drew in clear lines between political powers. This information provides a link between the improved skill of mapmakers and the rise of boundary lines, which are a key component of modern nation-states.

(E) strengthen's the author's reasoning, so (E) is looking good.

(B) gives us more information about the time period BEFORE the 15th century. Instead of each city/town having its own authority, some authorities claimed power over several of these areas.

Interesting, but does this impact the author's reasoning in any way? There is no connection here to the conclusion that "advances in mapmaking contributed to the rise of modern nation-states." (B) gives us a  slightly  clearer picture of power in Europe before the 15th century, but it does not add any significant information to tie together pieces of the author's reasoning, or to better link his/her reasoning to the conclusion.

(B) doesn't strengthen the author's reasoning, so it is not the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

DavidTutorexamPAL · Answer

The passage states that maps started out being centered around specific cities and didn't have well-defined boundaries, and finished off being drawn based on longitude/latitude lines with clear boundaries. It then argues that this change is what started the shift towards the modern state. Since the argument is straightforward, we'll infer a likely answer, the Precise approach.

Specifically, we need to show that the mapmaking, and not something else, is what caused the shift towards the modern state. Skimming over our options, (E) is the only relevant answer -- it shows how mapmakers in the 15th century made the borders between sovereignty (=states) more clear. Note that while (B) does show that there was no state concept before this period (so strengthens our belief that the timescale suggested is correct), it does not mention maps at all (so is weaker than (E) ).

SPatel1992 · Answer

Why isn't D the answer? It indicates a conceptual shift in the usage of the map and the way the cities and nations were divided.

dereksantamonica · Answer

This is why I too went with D. My interpretation is that the conceptual shift is not needing to draw a map because the sovereign areas now have clearly defined borders within existing maps.

DavidTutorexamPAL · Answer

Hey  dereksantamonica  and  SPatel1992 ,
The problem with your reasoning is that it is doesn't address the historians' main claim. This is the main claim:
'The conceptual shift toward the modern state **began in the late fifteenth century, when mapmakers learned to** ...'
(D) does not support the claim that the shift began in the late fifteenth century, nor does it support the claim that it was 'mapmakers learning to do something' that caused this shift.
It does show that by the 17th century things had shifted, but this is not what you were asked to support.

Hope this helps,
David

jawele · Answer

Hi  DavidTutorexamPAL

Could you please comment on A?

A. Borders did not become codified in Europe until certain treaties were signed in the early nineteenth century.

Option A says that borders officially were established in early 19 c., eliminating one alternative scenario in which the borders may have been fixed at the same time when the shift was happening. Thus, it strengthens the argument, in my opinion.

Thanks

DavidTutorexamPAL · Answer

Hey @jawale,

The general answer is that (A) is eliminated for the same reasons (D) is (see above discussion):
It does not relate directly to the core issue of 'mapmaking was the cause' and 'this happened in the 15th century'.

More specifically, your 'alternative scenario' is unclear to me. The passage claims that the conceptual shift began late 15th century when mapmakers learned to use longitude/latitude. How does 'borders were fixed when the shift was happening' serve as an alternative explanation? Even if there is an alternative explanation, how would information about the 19th century help you to strongly negate this alternative explanation? When analyzing an answer choice, be careful not to try too hard to justify it. The further an answer choice is from the original logic of the passage (and usually from the details of a passage), the less likely it is to be true.

jawele · Answer

Hey  DavidTutorexamPAL

Thanks for the response. Please do not think that I am questioning your reasoning. I'm just trying to understand why I have faltered: initially I picked E, but then suddenly I changed my mind. To answer your question, I will paraphrase mine. The alternative scenario that I referred to is - in other words - alternate cause. In your analysis, you allude to cause, as the core of this argument. There are arguments that deal with causation, and your task is to find an assumption, for instance. Often, one option among answer choices to such arguments claims that "... the author does not believes that the cause is something something ...", which in the negate form would weaken the argument. So in that sense, such an option strengthens the argument, while ruling out other factors that may have a role in the argument. So back to my thought, I supposed that A could be playing a similar role here: if the borders were fixed before the shift in map-making happened, then clearly it is not the map-making technique that brought about the modern nations, but the decision to fix the borders. And pushing that event (alternative) away from the date that we're concerned, sort of strengthens the argument, at least I thought. Yet, this may stray quite away from the argument or even be considered a stretch (?), just as you say...

Anyway, do you profile arguments? If so, would this argument fall under "causation" or "principle/hypothesis" umbrella? Perhaps something else?

Thanks for your help

Anyway, do you profile arguments? If so, would this argument fall under "causation" or "principle/hypothesis" umbrella? Perhaps something else?

GMATNinja  could you please share ideas about this argument, especially option A

Thanks for your help

DavidTutorexamPAL · Answer

Hey  jawele ,

You are correct that negating an alternative explanation can strengthen the original argument. In this case, however, the alternative explanation you offer doesn't really make sense as the passage explicitly states that 'boundaries were ambiguously defined' until the 15th century and only started to change late 15th century. In general, I stand by my recommendation from above: focus on the core logic of the argument and see what addresses it. If no direct answers are apparent, look for more subtle ones. (A) should never have been an option for consideration in this question as it is too far out from the original claim.

Also, no worries about 'questioning my reasoning', learning is what we are here to do.

Cryingforhelp · Answer

Hi, I was torn on between B and E and am still unsure why B is not the correct answer. Could anyone please help to explain?

Thanks in advance

jack0997 · Answer

Hello GMATNinja,

Since E says, "  During  the fifteenth century... , " while the historian claims, "The conceptual shift toward the modern state began in the   late  fifteenth century , ...," I treated E as rather a weakened. I interpreted E as NOT in LATE 15th century but at least somewhat before that the conceptual shift toward the modern state began.

Pl. enlighten on this. Thank you.

GMATNinja · Answer

It's sometimes tempting to eliminate an answer choice when you notice that the words don't exactly match the words in the passage. However, your task isn't to find matching words, but instead to answer the question. In this case, does (E) strengthen the historian's reasoning even though the words don't match exactly?

The author argues that " fifteenth-century  advances in mapmaking contributed to the rise of modern nation-states." One piece of his/her reasoning is that "conceptual shift toward the modern state began in the   late  fifteenth century , when mapmakers learned to reflect geography accurately by basing maps on latitude-longitude grids."

Here's (E):
 
There's nothing incompatible with these timelines. The "late fifteenth century" IS during the fifteenth century. So maybe ALL of these advances (latitude-longitude grids and simplified borders) occurred during the late fifteenth century -- that would strengthen the author's argument that 15th century mapmaking contributed to the rise of nation-states. It's just not quite correct to say that (E) specifies or excludes a certain time within the 15th century.

Overall, it's a good thing to notice the details in the passage and answer choices. But at the end of the day, if those differences don't give you a strong reason to eliminate an answer choice, then you can't just get rid of it because the words don't match.

I hope that helps!

woohoo921 · Answer

GMATNinja

I realize a strategy to approach CR on the GMAT is to read like a caveman. When you say, "which are a key component of modern nation-states", how do we know this from what is given in the question? This requires an assumption on our end, no?

GMATNinja · Answer

While it's important to not insert your own thoughts/assumptions into a given passage, that's not really what's happening here. You don't have to make any assumptions if you know the definition of "nation-state": a political unit with "a shared national identity,  physical borders , and a single government."

Sometimes you come across vocabulary words that you're not quite comfortable with on the test. When that happens, you have two options: either guess on that question and sink more time into other questions in the section, or try to pick up context clues to piece together the meaning of the word.

Here, the historian is drawing a connection between boundary lines on maps and the rise of nation-states. If you're not sure about the word "nation-state," you can either take this connection as a clue and use process of elimination to arrive at answer choice (E), or you can decide that your grasp of the vocabulary is too shaky, and just guess and move on to other questions.

I hope that helps a bit!

rmahe11 · Answer

Hi charles, how is E correct ? here in paragraph it talks lines between various states there is no correlation with Political powers

GMATNinja · Answer

You're right that the words "political powers" do not appear in the passage. However, this doesn't mean you can automatically make an elimination -- you still have to see whether the answer choice impacts the argument, even if the words aren't an exact match.

First, think about the definition of "political power." In this context, "political powers" are  the governments of sovereign regions . Here's a sentence using the term in that way: "The USSR was as a formidable political power in the Cold War era, exerting influence across vast swathes of Eastern Europe and Asia."

The passage describes a shift in how "political powers" were shaped -- first they were centered in cities and radiated outward, and later they became more like modern nation-states. (E) strengthens the argument that mapmakers contributed to this shift by drawing clear boundaries between the different political powers.

I hope that helps!

agrasan · Answer

Hi  GMATNinja   KarishmaB ,

Could you please explain how can we eliminate Option C? During my attempt, I first selected E and then changed it to C.

My thinking was - Option C strengthens the argument as mapmakers learned to reflect geography by latitude-longitude grids. In the 16th century, if political elites (influential people of sovereign regions) got maps as a hobby then they might have further explored maps in the 17th century to assist map-makers in drawing boundary lines. Also, option C development happened in the late 16th and early 17th centuries which establishes a link between 15th and 17th-century developments (per argument).

Is it the case that  "as a hobby"  makes C the wrong option as a  hobby is an activity done something only for pleasure ?
Please let me know where I went wrong in my thinking.

KarishmaB · Answer

From 5th to 15th century, sovereignty centered in cities and towns and radiated outward, with ambiguous boundaries.
The conceptual shift toward the modern state began in the late 15th century, when mapmakers learned to reflect geography accurately by basing maps on latitude-longitude grids.
By the mid-17th century, nearly all maps showed boundary lines.

Conclusion: 15th-century advances in mapmaking contributed to the rise of modern nation-states.

What will strengthen the author's conclusion?

(A) Borders did not become codified in Europe until certain treaties were signed in the early nineteenth century.

We need to strengthen that things that happened in the 15th century led to modern nation states. This option says that borders got codified in 19th century so in a way it weakens our conclusion. Mind you, it is still possible that things that happened in the 15th century led to modern nation states but this option certainly doesn't help us.

(B) During the medieval period, various authorities in Europe claimed power over collections of cities and towns, not contiguous territories.

We have already been told  that from 5th to 15th century (medieval period), sovereignty centered in cities and towns and radiated outward, with ambiguous boundaries. This is just giving further data on the same. But did 15th-century advances in mapmaking contributed to the rise of modern nation-states? It doesn't say.

(C) Many members of the political elite collected maps as a hobby during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries.

Irrelevant. Collecting maps as a hobby has nothing to do with what was on those maps.

(D) Seventeenth-century treatises and other sources of political authority describe areas of sovereignty rather than illustrate them using maps.

Irrelevant. The treatise talk about areas instead of giving map pictures (which are clearer supposedly). Doesn't tell us if 15th-century advances in mapmaking contributed to the rise of modern nation-states.

(E) During the fifteenth century in Europe, mapmakers simplified the borders of sovereignty by drawing clear lines of demarcation between political powers.

This talks about 15th-century advances in mapmaking. It says that in 15th century mapmakers simplified border by drawing clear lines of demarcation between political powers. SO the first separate political states were demarcated on the maps.  It certainly strengthens that 15th-century advances in mapmaking contributed to the rise of modern nation-states.

Answer (E)

KarishmaB · Answer

You are assuming too much. We are given that it was a hobby. It needn't have a purpose at all.

Historian: Fifteenth-century advances in mapmaking contributed to the

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 Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Historian: Fifteenth-century advances in mapmaking contributed to the

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