Understanding the argument -
Historian: In the Drindian Empire, censuses were conducted annually to determine the population of each village. Fact
Village census records for the last half of the 1600’s are remarkably complete. Fact
This very completeness makes one point stand out; in five different years, villages overwhelmingly reported significant population declines. Fact
Tellingly, each of those five years immediately followed an increase in a certain Drindian tax. Fact
This tax, which was assessed on villages, was computed by the central government using the annual census figures. Fact
Obviously, whenever the tax went up, villages had an especially powerful economic incentive to minimize the number of people they recorded (Author's judgment or belief); and concealing the size of a village’s population from government census takers would have been easy.
Therefore, it is reasonable to think that the reported declines did not happen. The main conclusion that the argument seeks to establish.
In the historian’s argument, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
(A) The first presents a finding to support the position the historian seeks to establish (ok); the second is a consideration that has been used to argue against that position. (No. It supports the main conclusion)
(B) The first provides a context for certain evidence that supports the position that the historian seeks to establish (ok); the second is the judgement advanced to support that position. (ok)
(C) The first is a position that the historian seeks to establish (No its not the main conclusion); the second is evidence that has been used to argue against that position. (No, moreover its not supporting the first boldface)
(D) The first is an assumption that the historian explicitly makes in support of a certain position (It's a fact and not an assumption); the second is that position (the first BF is not stated to support BF2. Instead, the BF 2 is judgment-advanced to support the main conclusion.
(E) The first is the claim that the historian rejects (the first is not a claim. Its a fact and the historian is not rejecting it); the second is a conclusion drawn to justify that rejection. (the second is not a conclusion drawn to support BF1. Instead it used to support the main conclusion)