Some studies of how it was that Prussia resisted the wave of European

Question

Some studies of how it was that Prussia resisted the wave of European democratization in the nineteenth century point to Prussia’s unequal distribution of land ownership as the principal explanation. And political figures from areas in Prussia with high inequality in land ownership tended to be the staunchest opponents of democratic reforms.

However,  arguments that focus only on those figures’ conflicts with landless people ignore the fact that political figures are not only representatives of socioeconomic interests but also political actors embedded in particular contexts that shape whether they support democratic reforms.  Historians must take such contexts into account if they hope to explain what transpired in Prussia during this period.

Select  Passage  for the statement that best describes the purpose of the passage as a whole, and select  Portion  in  Boldface  for the statement that best describes the purpose of the portion in boldface. Make only two selections, one in each column.

AdityaHongunti · Accepted Answer

jack0997  how are you...apologies from the club to get back to you so late...lemme try to presnet my reasoning :

arguent:
1) some studies....as principal explanation" - in this sentence the author states a FACT that some studies point towards an aspect to expalain a phenomenon..phenomen-resistance to demo ..aspect-land ownership...the author states that the studies think that land ownership is the pirmary explanation for prusia's resistsance...THIS IS A FACT
2)"political figure...reforms" - author cites another FACT that the political figures deom areas(areas that had highly unequal land ownership)tended to be opponents of demo - THIS IS FACT
so far so good...author firsd tells us that some studies think that resistyance could be explained by land owneership...this is supported by the fact political figure FROM AREAS WHICH HAD UNEQUAL LAND WONERSHIP ...
3)HOWEVER..refoems" - contrast... the moment i read "some studies" i knew that author is going to qualify the implications of the study... the author raises a consideration that other aspects such as context are also important and hence argunmets depending solely upon one aspect are limited...author is not in agreement with the narrow scope of the study. then he concludes that a historians mus also account for the context in whihc certain events take place...

now purpose- why is author writing this passage?? to presnet the results of the study??? nope...the intentio of the author is to raise a consideration which should be taken into consideration and concludes by recommedning the historians to look at other aspects too

why not C? the author does criticize an argument which solely bases its conclusion on narrow aspects but is that what his main intention is??? author first criticeses about tyhe narrow scope and then he SUGGESTS the historians to consider other aspects to...look athe conclusion ...that is what author is trying to say...the criticism is how he inititates his argument but the purpose is to suggest to be more appreciative of other aspects

BOLD FACE:
author in the bold face tells us that the arguments base their opinion on naroow aspect...now this is a limitation of the argument which the author opposes and hence option C is right..
why not A? first of all author never presents an alternative to a STANDARD EXPLANATION...he only states that the conclsuion of the agrument is based on narrow aspects ...but he never presents any LATERNATIVE to an explanataion...

ds1710 · Answer

The first thing to do is identify the various sections of the passage as argument vs facts, premise vs counter premise and the conclusion - primary strategy from CR bible

The two important parts of the passage that the question stem targets are these:

Counter-premise - “however, arguments that focus only” .... also happens to be the boldface section 
Conclusion: Historians must take such contexts into account ...

So going back to the question stem:

The first question asks for the main point of the passage - so focus on the conclusion - It clearly states that historians should consider alternative views - Answer E

Boldface Argument Part - the bolded section only provides an opinion and there’s no fact, if anything this is more of an argument against hence a counter premise (idea counter to the argument) - Answer C

Posted from my mobile device

jack0997 · Answer

Can any expert help? I chose option A and E. The correct answers are EC. I think the boldface does not criticize, it rather encourages historians not to approach a particular historical event from too narrow a perspective.

hassan233 · Answer

Bold Face:  arguments that focus only on those figures’ conflicts with landless people ignore the fact that political figures are not only representatives of socioeconomic interests but also political actors embedded in particular contexts that shape whether they support democratic reforms 
Notice how they are saying " arguments  that focus only on ...  ignore the fact  that political figures  are not only representatives of  ...  but also ".
This is the author criticizing the basing argument saying that there is more and the current argument is NOT good. He explicitly mentions the "arguments" and then follows it with negative thought (criticizing it).

Passage: Before the boldface, they mention the argument, then they go about why that argument is not sufficient and it needs more (since it is ignoring some things), then the most important part comes in the last sentence when they say "Historians  must take such contexts into account  if they hope to explain what transpired in Prussia during this period."
This is telling us the historians must take everything into account, and NOT have a narrow perspective. It is literally telling us to take more contexts into account, because if we do not (that is, remain narrow visioned), we are missing a big piece of the picture.

jabhatta2 · Answer

Hi  avigutman  - regarding best describing the purpose of the boldface specifically - how does one eliminate (A) ?

I thought (A) & (C) were both ok.

The part in red below is an alternative explananation to the standard explanation (in the green) per my understanding

Below are some reasons why others have eliminated (A) regarding the bold face.

jabhatta2 · Answer

^^  avigutman

avigutman · Answer

Some studies point to  A  as the principal explanation. However,  arguments that focus only on  A  ignore the fact that it's not only  A , but also  B  .

This argument doesn't have a standard explanation vs. an alternative explanation. This argument is commanding historians to take particular contexts into account ( B ), in addition to  A . That's why I eliminate A without hesitation,  jabhatta2 .

jabhatta2 · Answer

avigutman  - So you are saying ( B ) is not even an explanation ? ( B ) is just ' more context ' and (B) is not an even an explanation ?

jabhatta2 · Answer

^^ avigutman  - i thought this kind of 'needle threading' was not what the GMAT tests (like in SC, where commas are placed as a way to eliminate)

This kind of micro-needling (difference between  an explanation   vs  additional context ) is not easy to decipher in 3.5 minutes

I suppose the last statement does have the word 'context' (yellow highlight) but i dont know -- to eliminate (A) based on the difference between 'additional context' and 'explanations' seem to be 'needle threading' -- too subtle ..

avigutman · Answer

No,  jabhatta2 , B is not an explanation that is offered as an   alternative to   A. B is an explanation that the author believes should be   incorporated into   A. This is not micro-needling, it's an important distinction that you do need to be able to make very quickly, both on the GMAT and in real life. In fact, as an exercise, I suggest that you try to write the structure of a sentence whose purpose is to offer an alternative to the standard explanation - so that you can compare and contrast to the original sentence's structure:

jabhatta2 · Answer

avigutman  - As requested, here is my attempt of the original structure and the variation of the structure

(i) Regarding the structure of the bold face - i thought this was a more anlaogous structure

(ii) Alternative structure

jabhatta2 · Answer

avigutman

when some one says (A) is an alternative explanation to (B) - does that mean,  (A) and (B) are both viable explanations  OR  (B) is the ONLY option  ? I think the first case.

For example - in order to reach Avi's house, Highway 401 is alternative route to the standard Highway 403 route. I think this means, BOTH routes are possible.

avigutman · Answer

jabhatta2 , You're staying way too close to the original structure, so your versions 1 and 2 still read like a criticism of the arguments being too narrowly focused. In order to turn this into a sentence whose purpose is to offer an alternative to the standard explanation, you'll have to completely change the structural words of the sentence (I boldfaced them in your quote for your convenience). Here's an example of an argument whose purpose is to offer an alternative to the standard explanation: Source: https://gmatclub.com/forum/musical-comp ... 85884.html

avigutman · Answer

Yes,  jabhatta2 , offering an alternative explanation doesn't necessarily kill the original explanation.

ChiranjeevSingh · Answer

I found the passage of this question quite challenging for me. In the video below, I explain how I went about it (and how I generally go about reading difficult texts)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAQNbObH1Xg

bumpbot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club BumpBot:

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

This post was generated automatically.

Passage	Portion in Boldface
		To offer an alternative to the standard explanation of a particular historical event.
		To provide evidence that economic issues were at the root of a particular historical event.
		To criticize a certain type of argument about a particular historical event.
		To criticize the motives of political figures involved in a particular historical event.
		To encourage historians not to approach a particular historical event from too narrow a perspective.

Some studies of how it was that Prussia resisted the wave of European

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 Two-part Analysis (TPA) Questions

Some studies of how it was that Prussia resisted the wave of European

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