A primary ingredient of Shaw's book on the American Revolution is the notion of an adolescent rite of passage, the...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Official Guide
...
...
Post a Query
A primary ingredient of Shaw's book on the American Revolution is the notion of an adolescent rite of passage, the ritual that in various societies brings about the transition of a person from adolescence to adult-hood. Shaw interprets certain crowd actions that occurred prior to the American Revolution such as the burning of effigies of government officials as adolescent rites of passage. He argues that the Revolution could not have succeeded without these ceremonies. The effigies destroyed were surrogates not merely of the persons represented but of the king, the father who had to be overthrown by the children who were coming of age. The Revolution itself was an adolescent rite of passage a youth movement: not only did the adults who participated in the ritual protests adopt "the spirit or youth initiation" but they were actually joined by children. The colonists could not kill the king until they had prepared themselves by ritually killing other father figures in effigy. The ritual by enabling the colonists to direct their collective dissatisfaction at a single urges emboldened them and thus helped to prepare them for the final rite of passage.
What makes this very questionable diagnosis appealing is that it seems to answer problems raised by three very different interpretations of the American Revolution. Gipson has painted so rosy a picture of the empire that it is difficult to see why the colonists should have rebelled. He suggests that the colonists responded to the king's treatment of them as a spoiled child would respond to a caring parent. Shaw's work provides the missing piece.
Bailyn has traced the impact on the colonists of the suspicion that there was a conspiracy among English government officials to deprive the colonists of their liberties. He argues that many people of Massachusetts believed that Thomas Hutchinson was at the center of such a conspiracy. Since Hutchinson had done little to deserve the suspicion that fell upon him, the colonists who attacked him appear in Bailyn's work as inexplicably paranoid. Now we have another explanation for this puzzling phenomenon, they were undergoing a preliminary rite of passage using Hutchinson as surrogate father in order to prepare for the overthrow of the king the act that would bring them to the political adulthood for which they yearned.
Shaw's interpretation also provides an explanation for the crowd actions that have fascinated Marxist historians. These historians have been trying to endow the crowds that were a conspicuous feature of the early stages of Revolution and that participated in the effigy burning with motives distinct from those espoused by the upper-class leaders of the Revolution. None of their attempts has succeeded. Shaw's interpretation, however, gives new dimensions to the actions of the crowds. It discovers "extrapolitical" motives, albeit unconscious ones, for their rebellion.
Ques. 1/8
It can be inferred from the passage that the author would find Shaw's interpretation of the American Revolution less appealing if which of the following were commonly regarded by historians as an accurate view of historical events?
- Very few children participated in the various crowd actions that took place prior to and during the American Revolution.
- The king of England was very unfair in his treatment of the American colonists.
- The people of Massachusetts who attacked Thomas Hutchinson had good reason to believe that he had attempted to deprive them of liberties to which they were entitled.
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| A primary ingredient of Shaw's book on the American Revolution is the notion of an adolescent rite of passage, the ritual that in various societies brings about the transition of a person from adolescence to adult-hood. | What it says: Shaw's book focuses on adolescent rites of passage - these are ceremonies that help people transition from being teenagers to adults. What it does: Introduces Shaw's main theory and defines a key concept Source/Type: The author describing Shaw's scholarly claim Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the opening - establishes the foundation for everything to follow Visualization: Think of ceremonies like bar/bat mitzvahs, graduation ceremonies, or coming-of-age rituals in different cultures - Shaw believes something similar happened with American colonists Reading Strategy Insight: Notice how the author immediately defines the technical term "adolescent rite of passage" in everyday language - this is helpful, not intimidating |
| Shaw interprets certain crowd actions that occurred prior to the American Revolution such as the burning of effigies of government officials as adolescent rites of passage. | What it says: Shaw thinks when colonists burned fake dolls representing government officials, these were actually coming-of-age ceremonies What it does: Provides a specific example of Shaw's theory in action Source/Type: Shaw's interpretation of historical events Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds directly on sentence 1 by showing HOW Shaw applies his "adolescent rite of passage" concept to real historical events Visualization: Picture colonists gathering to burn stuffed dolls that look like tax collectors or governors - Shaw says this wasn't just anger, but a psychological growing-up ritual Reading Strategy Insight: This is Shaw making his abstract theory concrete with a real example - feel more confident, not less! |
| He argues that the Revolution could not have succeeded without these ceremonies. | What it says: According to Shaw, these effigy-burning ceremonies were essential for the Revolution to work What it does: States the importance/significance of Shaw's theory Source/Type: Shaw's argument about causation Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on the previous two sentences by explaining WHY these ceremonies mattered - they weren't just symbolic, they were necessary Visualization: Think of it like this: Without these practice ceremonies (burning effigies), the colonists wouldn't have been psychologically ready for the real Revolution Reading Strategy Insight: Notice how Shaw is making a strong causal claim - these weren't just interesting side events, they were crucial to success |
| The effigies destroyed were surrogates not merely of the persons represented but of the king, the father who had to be overthrown by the children who were coming of age. | What it says: When colonists burned fake dolls of officials, they were really practicing to overthrow the king (seen as a father figure), with colonists as children growing up What it does: Explains the psychological symbolism behind the ceremonies Source/Type: Shaw's interpretation of the symbolic meaning Connection to Previous Sentences: This elaborates on sentence 2's example by explaining the DEEPER meaning - it wasn't just about local officials, but about preparing to rebel against the ultimate authority figure (the king) Visualization: King = Father figure over colonial "children" who need to grow up and become independent. Burning effigies = practice for this psychological break Reading Strategy Insight: Key insight: Shaw sees this as a parent-child relationship that needs to be broken for independence |
| The Revolution itself was an adolescent rite of passage a youth movement: not only did the adults who participated in the ritual protests adopt "the spirit or youth initiation" but they were actually joined by children. | What it says: Shaw thinks the entire Revolution was one big coming-of-age ceremony, where adults acted youthful and actual children participated too What it does: Expands Shaw's theory from specific ceremonies to the entire Revolution Source/Type: Shaw's broader interpretation with supporting evidence Connection to Previous Sentences: This restates and expands the core theory - we've gone from specific effigy burning to the Revolution as one giant rite of passage What We Know So Far: Shaw's theory, effigy burning as examples, psychological father-child dynamic, ceremonies as preparation Visualization: Picture a massive coming-of-age ceremony involving entire communities - adults acting like rebellious teenagers, with actual teenagers joining in Reading Strategy Insight: This is Shaw's theory at its broadest scope - everything we've learned so far was building to this big picture view |
| The colonists could not kill the king until they had prepared themselves by ritually killing other father figures in effigy. | What it says: Colonists needed practice sessions (burning fake officials) before they could psychologically handle rebelling against the king What it does: Restates the preparation theory in stark, simple terms Source/Type: Shaw's interpretation of psychological necessity Connection to Previous Sentences: This is NOT new information! This restates sentences 3 and 4 in more direct language - the author is helping us understand Shaw's theory clearly Visualization: Like practicing on easier opponents before facing the final boss - colonists practiced psychological rebellion on local officials before taking on the king Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is simplification, not new complexity. The author is making Shaw's theory crystal clear |
| The ritual by enabling the colonists to direct their collective dissatisfaction at a single urges emboldied them and thus helped to prepare them for the final rite of passage. | What it says: These ceremonies helped colonists focus their anger on specific targets, which gave them courage for the ultimate rebellion What it does: Explains the psychological mechanism of how the preparation worked Source/Type: Shaw's explanation of psychological process Connection to Previous Sentences: This elaborates on the previous sentence by explaining HOW the practice sessions worked psychologically - they built confidence through focused anger Visualization: Like rallying around a common enemy to build team spirit before a big game - burning effigies = team building for Revolution Reading Strategy Insight: This completes Shaw's explanation - we now understand both WHAT happened (effigy burning) and HOW it worked (built collective courage) |
| What makes this very questionable diagnosis appealing is that it seems to answer problems raised by three very different interpretations of the American Revolution. | What it says: Even though Shaw's theory is doubtful, it's attractive because it solves problems that three other historians couldn't solve What it does: Transitions from explaining Shaw's theory to evaluating it, introducing three other historians Source/Type: The passage author's evaluation of Shaw's work Connection to Previous Sentences: This is a major shift! We've finished learning Shaw's theory and now we're going to see how it relates to other historians' work Visualization: Imagine 3 different puzzle pieces that don't fit together properly, and Shaw's theory as a potential connecting piece Reading Strategy Insight: Important transition: the author calls Shaw's theory "questionable" but explains why people might find it useful anyway |
| Gipson has painted so rosy a picture of the empire that it is difficult to see why the colonists should have rebelled. | What it says: Historian Gipson made British rule look so good that it's hard to understand why colonists would want independence What it does: Introduces the first historian's problem that Shaw's theory might solve Source/Type: Description of Gipson's historical interpretation Connection to Previous Sentences: This begins explaining the "three very different interpretations" mentioned in the previous sentence - starting with Gipson's version Visualization: Gipson's view: British Empire = Good ruler, Colonists = Ungrateful subjects with no good reason to rebel Reading Strategy Insight: We don't need to know details about Gipson - just understand his basic problem: he can't explain why anyone would rebel against such good treatment |
| He suggests that the colonists responded to the king's treatment of them as a spoiled child would respond to a caring parent. | What it says: Gipson thinks colonists acted like bratty kids rejecting a loving parent's care What it does: Elaborates on Gipson's interpretation using parent-child metaphor Source/Type: Gipson's interpretation Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on the previous sentence by explaining Gipson's solution to his own problem - colonists were just being unreasonably bratty Visualization: Gipson's view: King = Caring parent, Colonists = Spoiled children throwing tantrums for no good reason Reading Strategy Insight: Notice the parent-child metaphor appears again! This will connect to Shaw's father-child theory |
| Shaw's work provides the missing piece. | What it says: Shaw's theory fills in the gap in Gipson's explanation What it does: States simply how Shaw helps solve Gipson's problem Source/Type: The passage author's evaluation Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly connects back to Shaw's theory from the opening sentences - Shaw's idea about overthrowing the father figure explains WHY colonists would rebel even against good treatment Visualization: Shaw's missing puzzle piece: Even "good" children eventually need to grow up and leave home - rebellion was natural psychological development, not brattiness Reading Strategy Insight: This is a simple, satisfying connection - Shaw's coming-of-age theory explains Gipson's puzzle perfectly |
| Bailyn has traced the impact on the colonists of the suspicion that there was a conspiracy among English government officials to deprive the colonists of their liberties. | What it says: Historian Bailyn studied how colonists believed English officials were secretly plotting to take away their freedoms What it does: Introduces the second historian's focus on conspiracy theories Source/Type: Description of Bailyn's historical research Connection to Previous Sentences: This introduces the second of the "three very different interpretations" - moving from Gipson (who saw good treatment) to Bailyn (who focuses on colonist fears) Visualization: Bailyn's focus: Colonists believing "They're all plotting against us behind closed doors" Reading Strategy Insight: We're getting the second perspective - while Gipson saw good treatment, Bailyn focuses on colonist fears of secret plots |
| He argues that many people of Massachusetts believed that Thomas Hutchinson was at the center of such a conspiracy. | What it says: According to Bailyn, Massachusetts colonists thought Thomas Hutchinson was the main conspirator trying to take their freedoms What it does: Provides a specific example of Bailyn's conspiracy theory research Source/Type: Bailyn's research findings Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives us a concrete example of the conspiracy fears mentioned in the previous sentence - Hutchinson as the focal point Visualization: Massachusetts colonists pointing fingers at Hutchinson saying "He's the ringleader of the plot against us" Reading Strategy Insight: Remember Hutchinson's name - this specific example will connect to Shaw's theory |
| Since Hutchinson had done little to deserve the suspicion that fell upon him, the colonists who attacked him appear in Bailyn's work as inexplicably paranoid. | What it says: Hutchinson didn't actually do much wrong, so Bailyn's colonists look irrationally paranoid for attacking him What it does: Identifies the problem with Bailyn's interpretation Source/Type: The passage author's analysis of Bailyn's problem Connection to Previous Sentences: This reveals Bailyn's puzzle - similar to Gipson's problem, Bailyn can't explain why colonists acted so extremely against someone who didn't deserve it Visualization: Bailyn's problem: Mostly innocent Hutchinson vs. Seemingly crazy colonists attacking him for no good reason Reading Strategy Insight: This sets up another problem that Shaw's theory might solve - why would colonists attack an innocent person? |
| Now we have another explanation for this puzzling phenomenon, they were undergoing a preliminary rite of passage using Hutchinson as surrogate father in order to prepare for the overthrow of the king the act that would bring them to the political adulthood for which they yearned. | What it says: Shaw's theory explains the Hutchinson attacks - colonists were practicing their rebellion on him as a father substitute before taking on the real father figure (the king) What it does: Shows how Shaw's theory solves Bailyn's puzzle Source/Type: Application of Shaw's theory to Bailyn's problem Connection to Previous Sentences: This brings Shaw's effigy-burning theory from the opening full circle - Hutchinson attacks weren't about conspiracy fears, they were practice sessions for overthrowing the king Visualization: Shaw's solution: Hutchinson = Practice target (surrogate father), King = Real target (actual father). Colonists = Children practicing psychological independence Reading Strategy Insight: Beautiful connection! Shaw's theory from the opening perfectly explains why colonists would attack an "innocent" person |
| Shaw's interpretation also provides an explanation for the crowd actions that have fascinated Marxist historians. | What it says: Shaw's theory also solves problems that Marxist historians have been studying about crowd behavior What it does: Introduces the third group of historians Shaw's theory helps Source/Type: Transition to the third historical interpretation Connection to Previous Sentences: This introduces the third of the "three very different interpretations" mentioned earlier - after Gipson and Bailyn, now we get Marxist historians Visualization: Third puzzle piece: Marxist historians staring at crowd behavior trying to understand what motivated it Reading Strategy Insight: Notice the pattern: Shaw's one theory is solving multiple historians' different problems |
| These historians have been trying to endow the crowds that were a conspicuous feature of the early stages of Revolution and that participated in the effigy burning with motives distinct from those espoused by the upper-class leaders of the Revolution. | What it says: Marxist historians want to show that common people in crowds (including those burning effigies) had different reasons for rebelling than wealthy leaders did What it does: Explains what Marxist historians are trying to prove Source/Type: Description of Marxist historians' goal Connection to Previous Sentences: This brings back effigy burning from Shaw's original theory! Now we see Marxist historians studying the same crowds Shaw analyzed Visualization: Marxist view: Rich leaders have one set of motives (political/economic), common people in crowds have different motives (?) Reading Strategy Insight: We're circling back to the effigy burning from the opening - different historians, same historical events, different interpretations |
| None of their attempts has succeeded. | What it says: Marxist historians have failed to prove that common people had different motives What it does: States the Marxist historians' problem simply Source/Type: The passage author's evaluation Connection to Previous Sentences: This reveals the third puzzle - like Gipson and Bailyn, the Marxist historians can't adequately explain the behavior they're studying Visualization: Marxist historians looking frustrated because they can't prove their theory about crowd motivations Reading Strategy Insight: Simple setup for Shaw's solution - three different groups of historians, all with unsolved problems |
| Shaw's interpretation, however, gives new dimensions to the actions of the crowds. | What it says: Shaw's theory provides fresh insights into why crowds acted as they did What it does: Transitions to how Shaw solves the Marxist historians' problem Source/Type: The passage author's evaluation of Shaw's contribution Connection to Previous Sentences: This sets up Shaw's solution to the third problem, just as we saw with Gipson and Bailyn Visualization: Shaw offering a new lens to view the same crowd behavior that stumped Marxist historians Reading Strategy Insight: Following the same pattern as before - problem stated, then Shaw's solution presented |
| It discovers "extrapolitical" motives, albeit unconscious ones, for their rebellion. | What it says: Shaw's theory finds motives beyond normal politics - unconscious psychological reasons for rebellion What it does: Explains how Shaw's theory gives Marxist historians what they wanted - different motives for common people Source/Type: Description of Shaw's contribution to Marxist interpretation Connection to Previous Sentences: This completes the pattern! Shaw's coming-of-age theory gives Marxist historians the "different motives" they were seeking - not economic or class-based, but psychological What We Know - Complete Picture: Shaw's one theory (adolescent rite of passage) solves three different historians' problems: Gipson's puzzle about rebellion against good treatment, Bailyn's puzzle about attacking "innocent" Hutchinson, and Marxist historians' search for non-elite motives Visualization: Shaw's solution for Marxists: Crowd motives = Unconscious psychological needs (growing up, becoming independent) rather than just economic grievances Reading Strategy Insight: Perfect conclusion! Shaw's theory provides the missing piece for all three historical approaches - it's a universal solution to their different problems |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain how Shaw's theory about the American Revolution as an adolescent rite of passage helps solve problems that have puzzled three different groups of historians.
Summary of Passage Structure:
In this passage, the author builds their explanation in clear steps:
- First, the author explains Shaw's theory that the American Revolution was like a coming-of-age ceremony, where colonists practiced rebellion by burning fake dolls of officials to prepare themselves psychologically for overthrowing the king (seen as a father figure).
- Next, the author shifts focus to evaluate Shaw's theory, calling it questionable but noting that it appeals to people because it solves problems that three different historians couldn't solve on their own.
- Then, the author walks through each historian's problem and shows how Shaw's theory provides solutions: it explains why colonists would rebel against good treatment (Gipson's puzzle), why they attacked an innocent official like Hutchinson (Bailyn's puzzle), and provides the different motives for common people that Marxist historians were seeking.
- Finally, the author concludes by showing how Shaw's theory gives Marxist historians the non-political, unconscious psychological motives they wanted to find in crowd behavior.
Main Point:
Even though Shaw's theory about the Revolution being a psychological growing-up process is questionable, it's attractive because it acts like a master key that unlocks puzzles from three completely different approaches to studying the American Revolution.
3. Question Analysis:
This is an inference question asking us to determine which scenarios would make the author find Shaw's interpretation LESS appealing. The key phrase is "less appealing if which of the following were commonly regarded by historians as an accurate view." We need to identify what historical facts, if true, would undermine the attractiveness of Shaw's theory.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we know that Shaw's theory is appealing specifically because it solves three historians' problems:
- Gipson's problem: Why would colonists rebel against good treatment? Shaw's answer: Natural coming-of-age rebellion against father figures
- Bailyn's problem: Why attack innocent Hutchinson? Shaw's answer: Practice session for overthrowing the king
- Marxist historians' problem: What different motives did common people have? Shaw's answer: Unconscious psychological needs
The passage analysis shows the author calls Shaw's theory "very questionable" but explains its appeal comes from solving these puzzles. If historical evidence contradicted the foundation of Shaw's theory or provided alternative explanations for these puzzles, the theory would become less appealing.
Prethinking:
Let's examine each scenario:
- I. Very few children participated: This would contradict Shaw's claim that "they were actually joined by children" and undermine the "youth movement" aspect
- II. The king was very unfair: This would provide an obvious, rational reason for rebellion, making Shaw's complex psychological explanation unnecessary for solving Gipson's puzzle
- III. Hutchinson attacks were justified: This would solve Bailyn's puzzle with a simpler explanation than Shaw's "surrogate father" theory
Scenarios II and III would provide simpler, more straightforward explanations for the historical puzzles that make Shaw's theory appealing, thus reducing its attractiveness.
Answer Choices Explained
A
I only
Why It's Wrong:
- Only addresses the youth participation aspect but ignores the more fundamental problems with Shaw's appeal
- While children's participation supports Shaw's theory, the lack of children wouldn't completely destroy his interpretation about adult psychological development
- Doesn't address the core appeal of Shaw's theory - solving other historians' puzzles
Common Student Mistakes:
- Focusing only on literal details rather than theoretical foundations?
→ Look for what makes Shaw's theory appealing overall, not just supporting evidence - Missing that Shaw's theory is primarily about adult psychological development?
→ Remember that adults "adopt the spirit of youth initiation" - children joining is supportive but not essential
B
II only
Why It's Wrong:
- This addresses only one of the three historians' problems Shaw's theory solves
- Doesn't account for how Shaw's theory also helps Bailyn and Marxist historians
- While it would reduce some appeal, it's not comprehensive enough
Common Student Mistakes:
- Forgetting about the other historians Shaw's theory helps?
→ Review that Shaw solves problems for Gipson, Bailyn, AND Marxist historians - Thinking one solution eliminates all appeal?
→ Consider that Shaw's theory has multiple attractive aspects
C
III only
Why It's Wrong:
- Only addresses Bailyn's puzzle about Hutchinson attacks
- Doesn't affect Shaw's solutions to Gipson's or Marxist historians' problems
- Shaw's theory would still be appealing for its other explanatory powers
Common Student Mistakes:
- Focusing on just one historian's problem?
→ Remember Shaw's theory appeals because it solves THREE different problems - Thinking Hutchinson is the center of Shaw's theory?
→ Hutchinson is just one example of the broader "surrogate father" concept
D
I and II only
Why It's Wrong:
- Combines I and II but still missing the crucial element about Hutchinson
- Doesn't address Bailyn's puzzle, which is a major component of Shaw's appeal
- Incomplete solution to reducing Shaw's theoretical attractiveness
Common Student Mistakes:
- Thinking two problems solved means Shaw's appeal is eliminated?
→ Shaw's theory must lose appeal across ALL the areas where it currently helps - Overlooking Bailyn's significant contribution to Shaw's appeal?
→ Review how Shaw's surrogate father theory specifically solves the Hutchinson paradox
E
II and III only
Why It's Right:
- Addresses two of the three major problems that make Shaw's theory appealing
- If the king was unfair, Gipson's puzzle disappears - obvious reasons for rebellion exist
- If Hutchinson attacks were justified, Bailyn's puzzle disappears - rational rather than psychological explanations suffice
- Together, these eliminate the need for Shaw's complex psychological interpretation in the two most compelling areas
Key Evidence: "What makes this very questionable diagnosis appealing is that it seems to answer problems raised by three very different interpretations of the American Revolution" - if simpler explanations solve these problems, Shaw's complex theory becomes less necessary and therefore less appealing.
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More