Colonial historian David Allen's intensive study of five communities in seventeenth-century Massachusetts is a model of meticulous scholarship on the...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Colonial historian David Allen's intensive study of five communities in seventeenth-century Massachusetts is a model of meticulous scholarship on the detailed microcosmic level, and is convincing up to a point. Allen suggests that much more coherence and direct continuity existed between English and colonial agricultural practices and administrative organization than other historians have suggested. However, he overstates his case with the declaration that he has proved "the remarkable extent to which diversity in New England local institutions was directly imitative of regional differences in the mother country."
Such an assertion ignores critical differences between seventeenth—century England and New England. First, England was overcrowded and land-hungry; New England was sparsely populated and labor-hungry. Second, England suffered the normal European rate of mortality; New England, especially in the first generation of English colonists, was virtually free from infectious diseases. Third, England had an all-embracing state church; in New England membership in a church was restricted to the elect. Fourth, a high proportion of English villagers lived under paternalistic resident squires; no such class existed in New England. By narrowing his focus to village institutions and ignoring these critical differences, which studies by Greven, Demos, and Lockridge have shown to be so important, Allen has created a somewhat distorted picture of reality.
Allen's work is a rather extreme example of the "country community" school of seventeenth-century English history whose intemperate excesses in removing all national issues from the history of that period have been exposed by Professor Clive Holmes. What conclusion can be drawn, for example, from Allen's discovery that Puritan clergy who had come to the colonies from East Anglia were one-third to one-half as likely to return to England by 1660 as were Puritan ministers from western and northern England? We are not told in what way, if at all, this discovery illuminates historical understanding. Studies of local history have enormously expanded our horizons, but it is a mistake for their authors to conclude that village institutions are all that mattered, simply because their functions are all that the records of village institutions reveal.
The passage suggests that Professor Clive Holmes would most likely agree with which of the following statements?
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Colonial historian David Allen's intensive study of five communities in seventeenth-century Massachusetts is a model of meticulous scholarship on the detailed microcosmic level, and is convincing up to a point. | What it says: A historian named Allen did a very detailed study of 5 small Massachusetts communities in the 1600s. His work is very thorough and believable, but only partially. What it does: Introduces the main subject (Allen's study) with qualified praise - setting up for criticism Source/Type: Author's evaluation of Allen's work Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our opening sentence - establishes the foundation for discussion Visualization: Think of Allen as a researcher with a microscope, examining 5 small towns very carefully. He's 70% right but 30% wrong about something we don't know yet. Reading Strategy Insight: The phrase "up to a point" signals criticism is coming. This isn't praise - it's setup. What We Know So Far: Allen studied 5 Massachusetts communities; his work is detailed but flawed What We Don't Know Yet: What Allen concluded, why he's only partially right |
| Allen suggests that much more coherence and direct continuity existed between English and colonial agricultural practices and administrative organization than other historians have suggested. | What it says: Allen believes England and its American colonies were much more similar in farming and government than other historians think. What it does: Explains what Allen's main argument is Source/Type: Allen's claim/conclusion Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly explains what Allen concluded in his study mentioned in sentence 1. Now we understand what he was "convincing" about. Visualization: Picture England and Massachusetts as two puzzle pieces. Other historians say they're quite different shapes. Allen says they fit together almost perfectly. Reading Strategy Insight: This clarifies sentence 1 - now we know what Allen's study was about. Feel more confident, not confused. What We Know So Far: Allen argues England-colony similarities were much greater than others believe What We Don't Know Yet: Why the author thinks Allen is wrong |
| However, he overstates his case with the declaration that he has proved "the remarkable extent to which diversity in New England local institutions was directly imitative of regional differences in the mother country." | What it says: Allen goes too far by claiming he proved that different areas of New England directly copied different regions of England. What it does: Introduces the author's criticism - Allen's claim is too strong Source/Type: Author's criticism + Allen's quoted claim Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds directly on sentence 2 by showing the specific version of Allen's argument that goes too far. The word "However" signals the criticism promised in "up to a point." Visualization: Allen says: "New England town A copied English region A exactly, town B copied region B exactly, etc." The author says: "That's way too strong a claim." Reading Strategy Insight: This is still about the same basic issue from sentence 2 - just getting more specific. The author is zeroing in on the exact problem. What We Know So Far: Allen claims too strong a connection between specific English regions and New England areas What We Don't Know Yet: What evidence will be used to disprove Allen |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To critique a historian's work by showing that his conclusions are too strong and ignore important evidence that contradicts his argument.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their criticism in a clear, methodical way:
- First, the author introduces Allen's study with qualified praise, signaling that criticism will follow by saying it's only convincing "up to a point."
- Next, the author explains what Allen actually argued - that England and its American colonies were much more similar than other historians believe - and identifies the specific claim that goes too far.
- Then, the author systematically presents four major differences between England and New England that Allen ignored, using numbered examples to show how different the two places really were.
- Finally, the author concludes that Allen's narrow focus led to distorted conclusions and extends the criticism by connecting Allen's work to a broader problematic trend in historical scholarship.
Main Point:
Allen's argument that New England directly copied English regional differences is wrong because he focused too narrowly on small village details while ignoring major differences between the two places, leading to conclusions that don't match reality.
3. Question Analysis:
The question asks what Professor Clive Holmes would most likely agree with, based on how he's mentioned in the passage. This is an inference question that requires us to understand Holmes' position from limited information.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we know that Professor Clive Holmes is mentioned in the context of criticizing the "country community" school of historical scholarship. Specifically, the passage states that Holmes has "exposed" the "intemperate excesses in removing all national issues from the history of that period." This means Holmes believes that focusing only on local village issues while ignoring national concerns is a serious flaw in historical methodology.
Our analysis showed that the author uses Holmes as additional authority to support the criticism of Allen's narrow focus. Just as Allen ignored "critical differences" between England and New England by focusing only on village institutions, the broader "country community" school (which includes Allen) makes the same error by excluding national issues entirely.
Prethinking:
Based on Holmes' criticism of removing "all national issues" from seventeenth-century English history, he would likely advocate for including national concerns when studying local institutions. Holmes appears to believe that understanding local history requires considering the broader national context, not just village-level details in isolation.
Why It's Right:
• Holmes criticized the "country community" school for "removing all national issues from the history of that period"
• This directly implies he believes national issues should be included when studying local institutions
• The passage presents Holmes as opposing the narrow focus that ignores broader context
Key Evidence: "Allen's work is a rather extreme example of the 'country community' school of seventeenth-century English history whose intemperate excesses in removing all national issues from the history of that period have been exposed by Professor Clive Holmes."
Why It's Wrong:
• Holmes criticized removing national issues, but there's no evidence he accused historians of deliberately distorting evidence
• The passage doesn't suggest Holmes thinks historians intentionally manipulate facts
• Holmes' criticism is about methodology (ignoring national context), not about dishonest scholarship
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't "exposed" suggest Holmes found deliberate distortion?
→ "Exposed" here means "revealed" or "demonstrated," not "uncovered deliberate deception"
1. Isn't focusing only on local issues the same as distorting evidence?
→ Poor methodology ≠ intentional evidence manipulation; Holmes criticizes approach, not honesty
Why It's Wrong:
• Holmes actually criticized historians for focusing too much on local concerns while excluding national ones
• This choice represents the opposite of Holmes' actual position
• The passage shows Holmes advocates for including national issues, not excluding them
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Since the passage criticizes Allen's local focus, doesn't that mean national focus is also bad?
→ The criticism is of exclusive local focus; Holmes wants both local AND national perspectives
1. Isn't the author against all extreme positions?
→ The author opposes ignoring important context, not studying national issues
Why It's Wrong:
• Holmes criticized the complete removal of national issues, suggesting he values national perspective
• Nothing indicates Holmes believes local perspective is superior for understanding national issues
• This misrepresents Holmes as favoring local-first methodology, which contradicts his criticism
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Since Holmes studied seventeenth-century history, doesn't he prefer local approaches?
→ Holmes' field of study doesn't determine his methodology; his criticism shows he opposes purely local approaches
1. Wouldn't local people understand national issues better than distant observers?
→ This may be logical reasoning, but it doesn't reflect Holmes' position as described in the passage
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't suggest Holmes thinks local histories are worthless
• The author acknowledges that "Studies of local history have enormously expanded our horizons"
• Holmes' criticism is about excluding national context, not about local studies being useless
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Since Holmes criticizes the "country community" school, doesn't he oppose local history?
→ Holmes opposes exclusive focus on local issues, not local history itself
1. If local studies ignore important national context, aren't they basically worthless?
→ Flawed methodology doesn't negate all value; the issue is incompleteness, not uselessness