jack0997
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.
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...