Commonplace items sometimes play surprising roles in world

I went for 5 4 1.

I dont see why would it suggest that British were there before Dutch... Any reasoning ?

I would say that this is because of the following sentences:
"the Dutch attacked the Bandas" and "one island in the Banda chain remained in the hands of the British"

the word "remain" is key here to understand that the British were on the island before the Dutch

WOW

really hard one - i got all wrong

need to be more careful


thanks all

Okay I had 1,1,4 (before peeking) and here is why.

The first set of statements it has to be 1 because the paragraph says one island REMAINED in the hands of the British. Therefore the brits had to be there first.

The second set of statements again number 1 is it. The second paragraph does exactly as stated it conveys further facts to back up the original general statement about historical oddities. There really is just this initial assertion:"commonplace items play surprising roles ..." And then the recitation of facts in one situation to demonstrate the assertion. All of the other statements assume that the second paragraph is some metaanalysis of the original assertion but there is no meta in the second para.

The third set of statements was the hardest for me. Which statement MOST strengthens the claim that New Amsterdam would have remained Dutch but for the nutmeg? The first statment is good and probably strengthens the claim that the Dutch really wanted to get all of the Banda islands. But the fourth statement actually gives the Dutch a reason to have held onto New York. They were active traders and would have liked a piece of the fur trade. They just weighed the nutmeg trade as greater and more exclusive. So I think 4. more than 1. gives strength to why the Dutch would have held onto NewAmsterdam if not for the nutmeg. 1. gives strength to the idea of why they were willing to trade it away.

This is my reasoning. I hope it is helpful.

If you find my thoughts here helpful, please give kudos.
Thanks,
Skip

1] is definitely a good reason why Dutch wanted control over the Banda Islands, BUT the question above is asking what would cause New Amsterdam to remain with Dutch, if the nutmeg conflict (over Banda Islands) did not exist?, meaning what would have prompted the Dutch to choose New Amsterdam over the Banda Islands.

1] gives a reason why the Dutch would want Banda Islands, and NOT New Amsterdam. this, in fact, is a WEAKENER as it causes them to leave NA for Banda Islands.

we need to find the real motivation for the Dutch to pursue Banda Islands. the passage says that:
these nuts, from which the spice is made, ended up as a luxury item in the European market, via Venetian spice merchants. Eager to establish a monopoly over this valuable spice, the Dutch attacked the Bandas

that's IT! the Dutch were interested in monopolizing trade so that an item fetches them more money in the European market. 4] says:
New Amsterdam served as a trading center for furs exported to Europe.
This is the most appropriate STENGTHENER

a,a,d.

Damn , I marked all wrong C,D,C ,need to really be careful while reading these convoluted passages

A, D, C

One right two wrong. Really tough passage but learnt that the OAs are quite right. The reason behind the OAs is really good.

Killer passage. Small, but deadly.
+1 to you

btw, I don't think the logic behind answer 1 is watertight.
It is quite possible that the British conquered that particular island at the same time the Dutch was conquering the other islands. What makes this possible is that Banda was not a fortress, but a collection of individual islands and it is not illogical to assume that the Dutch did not attack all the islands simultaneously.
The Brits may have licked one while the Dutch were looking the other way. This is wrt the term 'remained'

As far as the term 'arrived' goes, the passage explicitly mentions Venetian traders, so the scale tilts to the possibility that Dutch arrived first.

Of course POE will lead to the answer but there is a leap one is required make in order to read the answer and think 'gotcha!'

On a side note, I found the information really interesting and spent some time on Wikipedia reading about the history of nutmeg.
This is what I love about RC.

For

Question 1 How can we eliminate 3? I actually thought about 1 but then went ahead and selected 3.

Question 5 : I was confused between 3 and 4 but went ahead and selected 3 considering the fact that the choice talks about furs exported - out of scope
Reasoning for 3 : Since the Dutch and wanted to grow in the Spice trade the dutch gave up New Amsterdam. Had the English been trading other valuable spices the importance of these spices to the dutch would have been less. I think my reasoning here is a little long shot.

But yes will accept the answers as they are.

One more question:

In the passage, the author is primarily interested in

1) tracing the history of a major city

2) discussing the role of commonplace items in world development

3) offering a specific example to support a general claim

4) arguing for continued research into political history

5) presenting an innovative view of a commonplace item