Historian: The practice of primogeniture, under which only oldest sons

Which of the following most logically completes the historian’s argument below?

Historian: The practice of primogeniture, under which only oldest sons inherit, had produced in Europe by the time of the Crusades a large population of aristocratic young men lacking any economic resources or prospects at home. For these men, joining a Crusade to the rich lands of the East would have seemed their only opportunity to acquire a fortune.

Going through the passage, we see that it basically states two key things:

- Because of "primogeniture," there was a large population of aristocratic young men lacking any economic resources or prospects at home.

- For these aristocratic young men, joining a Crusade would have seemed their only good economic opportunity.

Also, we can see that the passage doesn't say anything about others who may have joined Crusades or indicate that these young men succeeded in acquiring fortunes by joining Crusades. In other words, the information provided by the passage is pretty specific and limited.

Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded, though there is little direct evidence on this point, that.

This question is a Conclusion question in the form of a Complete the Passage question, and the correct answer will be a conclusion that is logically supported by the statements in the passage.

A. younger sons of aristocratic families were strongly represented among those who joined the Crusades

This choice is supported by what the passage says.

After all, if younger sons of aristocratic families were in positions such that it seemed that their only economic opportunities involved joining Crusades, then they had strong incentives for joining Crusades. Thus, it's reasonable to conclude from the information provided by the passage that many did join Crusades. Of course, if many younger sons of aristocratic families joined Crusades, then it would be the case that younger sons of aristocratic families were strongly represented among those who joined the Crusades.

Accordingly, given the information provided by the passage, it's reasonable to conclude what this choice says.

Keep.

B. for most participants, economic motives for joining a Crusade outweighed all other motives

This choice has two failure points.

One is that passage does not say anything about "most participants" in Crusades. The passage is about one possible segment of participants, aristocratic young men. So, the passage does not logically support any conclusions about "most participants."

The second failure point is that, while the passage indicates that aristocratic young men likely had economic motives for joining Crusades, the passage does not indicate anything about "other motives." So, the passage does not logically support the idea that "economic motives for joining a Crusade outweighed all other motives." For all we know from what the passage says, economic motives were not as strong as other motives for joining Crusades, even among young aristocratic men.

Eliminate.

C. very few firstborn sons participated in the Crusades out of economic motives

This choice is tempting. So, to avoid choosing it, we have to notice the following.

The passage indicates that younger sons did have economic motives for joining Crusades, but it does not indicate that firstborn sons did not have economic motives for joining Crusades.

In fact, if we think about it, if Crusades represented opportunities to acquire fortunes, then even firstborn sons may have been interested in participating in Crusades for economic reasons.

So, the passage does not logically support the conclusion that very few firstborn sons participated in the Crusades out of economic motives.

Simply put, the passage supports a conclusion about what younger sons did but doesn't support any conclusion about what firstborn sons did not do.

Eliminate.

D. no one with economic resources or prospects at home would have joined a Crusade

We can eliminate this choice because it goes beyond what the passage supports.

The passage indicates that younger sons in aristocratic families had reasons to join Crusades becuase they lacked economic resources or prospects, but it does not indicate that there were no other reasons to join Crusades.

So, the passage does not indicate that no one with economic resources or prospects at home would have joined a Crusade because it doesn't indicate that there was no reason to join a Crusade other than lack of economic resources or prospects.

There could have been many reasons to join Crusades. So, without information limiting those reasons to lack of economic resources or prospects, we have no clear reason to conclude what this choice says.

Eliminate.

E. many younger sons who would otherwise never have had independent fortunes succeeded in acquiring such fortunes as a result of their participation in the Crusades­

To see why this choice is incorrect, we need to notice that the passage indicates that younger sons had reasons to join Crusades but does not indicate in any way that younger sons who joined Crusades "succeeded" in acquiring fortunes.

So, this choice goes beyond what's logically supported by the passage.

Eliminate.

Correct answer: A­