Although Leiden was not a large commercial center, the first used-book auction in the Netherlands occurred there in 1599. Historian...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Although Leiden was not a large commercial center, the first used-book auction in the Netherlands occurred there in 1599. Historian Bert van Selm suggests this innovation occurred there because Leiden was then the only major Dutch city where booksellers were not subject to a guild, that is, a trade association that, while designed to protect its members' interests, also regulated their work activities.
Arguably, however, it was the shrewd strategy of Leiden bookseller Louis Elsevier—not the absence of guild regulation of booksellers' activities—that was the decisive factor. Elsevier sought and received official permission from the government audit office of Holland province to hold the auction, even though the Leiden local government and the Sint Lukas guild (for artists) were opposed. The Grote Zaal ("great hall"), where he intended to hold the auctions, was owned by the Court of Holland, not Leiden.
Leiden booksellers first had a guild in 1652, but their activities were not entirely unregulated before then. Van Selm cites a city ordinance from 1600 covering sales of movable goods. But he claims that certain provisions of the ordinance did not govern book auctions, arguing that if those provisions had been meant to apply to book auctions, the first used-book auction would have been administered by a city functionary, as sales of other movable goods had to be.
Which of the following statements about the Netherlands at the end of the sixteenth century would, if true, most strongly support van Selm's suggestion mentioned in the first paragraph of the passage?
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Although Leiden was not a large commercial center, the first used-book auction in the Netherlands occurred there in 1599. | What it says: A surprising fact - a small city hosted the first book auction in the country. What it does: Sets up a puzzle/contradiction that the passage will explain. Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous information to connect to. Visualization: Expected: Large commercial city → First book auction Reality: Small Leiden → First book auction (1599) Question: Why? What We Know So Far: There's a puzzle about why Leiden hosted the first auction What We Don't Know Yet: The explanation for this puzzle Reading Strategy Insight: This opening creates a clear question the passage will answer - stay focused on WHY Leiden was first. |
| Historian Bert van Selm suggests this innovation occurred there because Leiden was then the only major Dutch city where booksellers were not subject to a guild, that is, a trade association that, while designed to protect its members' interests, also regulated their work activities. | What it says: One historian's theory: Leiden was first because it had no guild controlling booksellers, giving them more freedom. What it does: Provides the first potential explanation for our opening puzzle. Source/Type: Researcher's theory/claim Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly answers the "why" question from sentence 1. Van Selm's theory explains the Leiden puzzle. Visualization: Other Dutch cities: Guild controls → No innovation Leiden: No guild → Freedom → First book auction What We Know So Far: • Leiden had first auction despite being small • Van Selm thinks: no guild = more freedom = innovation What We Don't Know Yet: Whether this explanation is correct Reading Strategy Insight: We now have a clear theory to evaluate. The passage structure is simple so far: puzzle → proposed solution. |
| Arguably, however, it was the shrewd strategy of Leiden bookseller Louis Elsevier—not the absence of guild regulation of booksellers' activities—that was the decisive factor. | What it says: The author disagrees with van Selm and proposes a different explanation: one clever bookseller (Elsevier) was the real reason. What it does: Introduces the author's counter-argument and main thesis. Source/Type: Author's opinion/argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly contrasts with van Selm's theory. Instead of "no guild regulation," the author says "Elsevier's strategy" was decisive. Visualization: Van Selm's theory: No guild → Success Author's theory: Elsevier's clever strategy → Success What We Know So Far: • Two competing theories for why Leiden was first • Theory 1 (van Selm): No guild regulation • Theory 2 (author): Elsevier's strategy What We Don't Know Yet: What Elsevier's strategy was and the evidence Reading Strategy Insight: Clear debate structure emerging. Now we'll get evidence for the author's position. |
| Elsevier sought and received official permission from the government audit office of Holland province to hold the auction, even though the Leiden local government and the Sint Lukas guild (for artists) were opposed. | What it says: Elsevier's smart move: he got permission from a higher authority (provincial government) when local authorities said no. What it does: Provides the first piece of evidence for the author's "shrewd strategy" claim. Source/Type: Historical fact (evidence) Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 3 by showing what "shrewd strategy" meant - going around local opposition to higher authority. Visualization: Local Level: Leiden government + Sint Lukas guild → OPPOSED Provincial Level: Holland audit office → APPROVED Elsevier's strategy: Skip local, go provincial → SUCCESS What We Know So Far: • Elsevier faced local opposition but found a workaround • His strategy was going to higher government authority What We Don't Know Yet: More details about how this strategy worked Reading Strategy Insight: This is concrete evidence supporting the author's argument - the passage is building a case, not getting more complex. |
| The Grote Zaal (great hall), where he intended to hold the auctions, was owned by the Court of Holland, not Leiden. | What it says: The auction venue belonged to the provincial court, not the city of Leiden. What it does: Provides additional evidence supporting Elsevier's strategy of bypassing local authority. Source/Type: Historical fact (evidence) Connection to Previous Sentences: This reinforces and explains the previous sentence. It shows WHY Elsevier could get provincial permission - he was using a provincial venue. Visualization: Venue ownership: Court of Holland (provincial) owns Grote Zaal Elsevier's logic: Provincial venue → Ask provincial authority → Bypass local opposition What We Know So Far: • Elsevier's complete strategy now clear: use provincial venue + get provincial permission • This bypassed local government and guild opposition What We Don't Know Yet: Whether there will be more evidence about guild regulation Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here - this is clarification, not new complexity. The author is building a clear, logical case. |
| Leiden booksellers first had a guild in 1652, but their activities were not entirely unregulated before then. | What it says: Important clarification: Even before 1652, Leiden booksellers had some regulations (contradicting the idea of complete freedom). What it does: Provides evidence that challenges van Selm's "no regulation" theory. Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This circles back to evaluate van Selm's theory from sentence 2. It suggests van Selm's "no guild = no regulation" idea was oversimplified. Visualization: Timeline: 1599: First auction (before guild) 1652: First bookseller guild established Reality: Some regulations existed even before 1652 What We Know So Far: • Van Selm's theory becomes weaker - there WAS some regulation • Author's Elsevier theory looks stronger by comparison What We Don't Know Yet: Specific details about these pre-1652 regulations Reading Strategy Insight: The passage is systematically building the case against van Selm and for the author's view. |
| Van Selm cites a city ordinance from 1600 covering sales of movable goods. But he claims that certain provisions of the ordinance did not govern book auctions, arguing that if those provisions had been meant to apply to book auctions, the first used-book auction would have been administered by a city functionary, as sales of other movable goods had to be. | What it says: Van Selm acknowledges there was a 1600 city law about selling goods, but argues it didn't apply to book auctions because the auction wasn't run by a city official. What it does: Shows van Selm's attempt to defend his theory against the evidence of regulation. Source/Type: Van Selm's argument/interpretation Connection to Previous Sentences: This continues the evaluation of van Selm's theory by showing his response to the regulation evidence from the previous sentence. Visualization: 1600 City Ordinance: • Covered sales of movable goods • Required city functionary to administer Van Selm's logic: Book auction had no city functionary → Ordinance didn't apply → Still supports his "no regulation" theory What We Know So Far: • There WAS a relevant city ordinance from 1600 • Van Selm tries to argue it didn't apply to book auctions • This seems like a weaker position for van Selm's original theory Reading Strategy Insight: The passage has come full circle - we started with van Selm's theory, got the author's alternative, and now see van Selm's theory under scrutiny. This is resolution, not new complexity. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To challenge one historian's explanation for why the first used-book auction in the Netherlands happened in a small city, and offer a different explanation based on one person's clever strategy.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by first presenting a puzzle, then showing why the common explanation doesn't work:
- First, the author presents a historical puzzle - why did the first book auction happen in small Leiden rather than a major commercial center?
- Next, the author introduces historian van Selm's theory that it happened because Leiden had no guild controlling booksellers, giving them freedom to innovate.
- Then, the author disagrees and argues that one bookseller's smart strategy was the real reason, showing how this person got around local opposition by getting permission from higher authorities.
- Finally, the author weakens van Selm's theory by showing that Leiden actually did have some regulations for booksellers, even though van Selm tries to argue these rules didn't apply to book auctions.
Main Point:
The first book auction in the Netherlands happened in Leiden not because of a lack of regulation, but because one clever bookseller figured out how to work around local opposition by getting permission from higher government authorities.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks us to find a statement that would strengthen van Selm's theory about why the first book auction happened in Leiden. According to our passage analysis, van Selm's theory is that Leiden was first because it was "the only major Dutch city where booksellers were not subject to a guild" and that guilds "regulated their work activities." For a statement to support this theory, it needs to show that guild regulation would have prevented or hindered book auctions in other cities.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our progressive analysis, we identified that:
- Van Selm's core argument is: No guild → Freedom → Innovation (first auction)
- The author challenges this by showing Elsevier's strategy was decisive
- The author also weakens van Selm's theory by showing there WAS some regulation in Leiden
- Van Selm tries to defend his theory by arguing the 1600 ordinance didn't apply to book auctions
The question is asking us to imagine additional evidence that would make van Selm's original theory stronger, despite the author's criticisms.
Prethinking:
To support van Selm's theory, we need evidence that guilds in other Dutch cities would have actively prevented or restricted book auctions. The key insight from our passage analysis is that van Selm believes guild regulation was the barrier to innovation. So we're looking for an answer that shows how guilds could restrict innovative sales practices like book auctions. The correct answer should demonstrate that guild regulations were indeed restrictive enough to prevent the kind of innovation that happened in Leiden.
• This tells us about guild membership composition but doesn't explain how guilds restricted innovative sales practices
• Knowing that printers were also members doesn't show that guild regulations prevented book auctions
• This doesn't connect to van Selm's core argument about regulatory restrictions
Common Student Mistakes:
- Does including printers in bookseller guilds make the guilds more restrictive?
→ Focus on what the passage says about guild regulation of "work activities," not membership composition - Isn't this about book-related businesses, so it must be relevant?
→ The question is specifically about regulatory restrictions that would prevent auctions, not about who belongs to guilds
• This directly supports van Selm's argument that guild regulation prevented innovation like book auctions
• Shows exactly how guilds could "regulate work activities" in ways that would stop booksellers from trying new sales methods
• Explains why only a city without guild regulation (like Leiden) could have the first auction
Key Evidence: "a trade association that, while designed to protect its members' interests, also regulated their work activities"
• This is about membership eligibility, not about regulatory restrictions on business practices
• Doesn't explain how guild rules would prevent book auctions from happening
• Van Selm's theory focuses on regulatory barriers, not membership requirements
Common Student Mistakes:
- Wouldn't limiting membership to book professionals make guilds more controlling?
→ The issue isn't who can join guilds, but what restrictions guilds placed on business activities - This seems related to the book trade, so shouldn't it support van Selm?
→ Look for answers that specifically address how guilds could prevent the innovation van Selm is talking about
• This actually weakens van Selm's theory by suggesting guild membership was optional
• If membership were voluntary, then booksellers in other cities could have simply not joined and held auctions anyway
• This contradicts the idea that guild regulation was a decisive barrier to innovation
Common Student Mistakes:
- Doesn't voluntary membership mean guilds had less power?
→ Exactly - this would undermine van Selm's argument that guild regulation prevented auctions - Maybe voluntary membership still created some barriers?
→ The question asks what would "most strongly support" van Selm - this choice works against his theory
• This describes internal guild structure but doesn't show how guilds restricted innovative business practices
• Having apprentices as members doesn't relate to van Selm's argument about regulatory barriers
• Doesn't explain why guild regulation would prevent book auctions
Common Student Mistakes:
- Wouldn't having unqualified members make guilds want to control activities more?
→ This is speculation not supported by the passage - focus on direct regulatory restrictions - This shows guilds had hierarchical control structures, isn't that relevant?
→ Van Selm's theory is specifically about how guild regulations prevented auction innovation, not internal guild organization