Historians sometimes forget that history is continually being made and

Hi can anyone please explain me the answer for Question 2 on prevailing dogma???

Can anyone please give an explanation for Question 1?

Historians sometimes forget that history is continually being made and experienced before it is studied, interpreted, and read. These latter activities have their own history, of course, which may impinge in unexpected ways on public events. It is difficult to predict when “new pasts” will overturn established historical interpretations and change the course of history.

(C) ["new pasts" can be described as the] change in people’s understanding of the past due to more recent historical writing

Yes, (A) must be eliminated because both had works published in the midst of important historical events:

• Woodward's work was published during the civil rights movement.
• Paine's work was published during the American revolutionary movement.

As for (E), the passage does say that Paine was not concerned with the dangers of historical anachronism. However, we don't know that he was ever really worried about historical anachronism or that he had to set those worries aside. Similarly, we don't know whether Woodward worried about historical anachronism and set those worries aside.

(E) is the best answer.

Dear GMATNinja,

I think the reason why E is correct is not the difference between "not concerned" but "set aside worries", but because of the structural words: "Although....also,...." and then "Yet, like Paine, ...."
It goes something like this: "Although they have something in common (mass readership), Paine is still different from Woodward in that he is not concerned...bla bla. Yet, like Paine, they're still similar in another aspect bla bla...."

So Woodward and Paine share a lot of things, except for things in the second clause of that "Although" sentence: "Paine had intended to reach and inspire: he was not a historian, and thus not concerned with accuracy or the dangers of historical anachronism" -> Woodward DID NOT intend to reach and inspire: Woodward might have been a historian and might have been concerned with accuracy or the dangers of historical anachronism.

Actually I just checked in real life, Woodward was actually a historian!

What do you think?

Here is the first paragraph of the passage:

Let's say that an event occurred in the 1800's -- it is "made and experienced" at that exact time.

Then, a historian comes along and studies, interprets, and reads about that event. His/her work creates an "established historical interpretation" of that event.

Later, another historian decides to study/interpret/read about the same event, and comes up with a different interpretation. This historian has created a new way of looking at the past, which overturns the established historical interpretation. In other words, the work of this latest historian creates a "new past" that differs from the way people previously understood the past event.

This definition of "new pasts" fits well with answer choice (C):


(C) is the correct answer to question #1.

I hope that helps!

In this sentence, a "handicap" is a challenge or an obstacle (i.e. "A fear of public speaking is a severe handicap to anyone running for public office.").
In 1776, the American Revolution was in its early stages. It would be difficult to write a history of a revolution while the revolution is still in its early stages. It would be easier to write such a history after the revolution so that you could look back and get the full picture.

Similarly, it would be difficult to assess the historical importance of a US President shortly after that President has taken office (and yes, I'm biting my tongue in a desperate effort keep this forum politically neutral). It would be easier to assess the historical importance of a President after that President's term is over. Hence, choice (C) is the best option.


As for the last question, refer to the following portion: "In the fall of 1954, for example, C. Vann Woodward delivered a lecture series at the University of Virginia which challenged the prevailing dogma concerning the history, continuity, and uniformity of racial segregation in the South."

Woodward challenged the idea that racial segregation in the South was continuous and uniform. Choice (A) represents the "prevailing dogma" that Woodward challenged, not Woodward's new idea.

I hope that helps!

Q2, Explained

To answer this question, let’s take a closer look at the text:

"In the fall of 1954, for example, C. Vann Woodward delivered a lecture series at the University of Virginia which challenged the prevailing dogma concerning the history, continuity, and uniformity of racial segregation in the South.”

"Concerning" means "about." If I mention that I have a belief concerning cat videos, I haven't told you what the content of my belief is. Maybe I love cat videos, or maybe I hate them. Perhaps I have an interesting theory about cat videos and why they’re so popular. Likewise, when the author mentions “the prevailing dogma concerning the history, continuity, and uniformity of racial segregation in the South," we have learned nothing about what the prevailing dogma was. We only know that there was some dominant belief about the history, continuity, and uniformity of racial segregation in the South. Let's keep reading.

"He argued that the Jim Crow laws of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries not only codified traditional practice but also were a determined effort to erase the considerable progress made by Black people during and after Reconstruction in the 1870’s.

Aha! Vann Woodward argued that Jim Crow not only codified traditional practice, but also meant to erase the progress that black people had made. His argument says that Jim Crow wasn't just turning traditions into law (this was the existing belief about the history, continuity, and uniformity of racial segregation). According to Van Woodward, Jim Crow was also undoing progress that black people had had made during Reconstruction (this was the revisionist view that made a big impact on how people interpreted the continuity of Jim Crow as a traditional practice).

To help understand the logical structure here, consider the following example:

• Say that the prevailing dogma about butter is that it is bad for your heart. To keep things simple, let's say that this is the only bad thing about butter according to the prevailing view.
• You then conduct a bunch of research related to butter and conclude that butter also kills brain cells (let's hope not!).
• You then might say, "Butter is NOT ONLY bad for your heart BUT ALSO bad for your brain!"
• The "not only" part was the accepted dogma, while the "but also" was something new. This new discovery challenges the existing view, which is that butter is only bad for your heart.
• Note that you are NOT saying that butter is good for your heart, but you are still challenging the prevailing dogma.

Similarly:

• The prevailing dogma saw Jim Crow as a continuation of traditional, discriminatory practices.
• Vann Woodward argued that Jim Crow was also a reversal of Reconstruction.

Let's make sure we review every answer choice and confirm whether it matches this understanding.


This matches what we’ve read. At the time, people believed that Jim Crow laws had codified (i.e. made into law) traditional practices of discrimination against black people. Vann Woodward challenged this belief in the historical continuity of racial segregation by arguing that Jim Crow laws also erased the prior progress black people had made during Reconstruction.


Was the point of Jim Crow to reduce differences between individual states? No. Vann Woodward challenged a widely held belief in the historical continuity of Jim Crow, not the geographic continuity of Jim Crow. Eliminate (B).


This is what Vann Woodward argued, not the dogma he argued against. Eliminate (C).


Both Vann Woodward and people of his time believed that Jim Crow had codified, not disrupted, traditional practices of racial segregation. Eliminate (D).


There is no mention of "earlier" Jim Crow Laws anywhere in the passage. Eliminate (E).

(A) is the best choice available.

GMATNinja
i thought that not only x but also y here would mean that the prevailing dogma was wrong about two things:
1) People thought that he's doing the OPPOSITE of turning traditions into law. Basically the laws were being eradicated. And,
2) people thought that the laws had a considerable effort to improve the conditions of black people

how would we differentiate this understanding from the one mentioned by you?

Hi Everyone,

Could someone please help me with Question number 3. It feels very not-GMAT like for them
to expect us to know some information regarding the passage contents. How would
we (non-americans) understand what the word 'handicap' refers to if we do not know that the
American Revolution was ongoing in 1776 or just ended?????