Loading...
Economic historians usually assume that the size of animal herds maintained by medieval European farmers was inversely related to medieval cereal production: land devoted to crop farming could not be used for pasturing animals, and vice versa. Thus, one historian has postulated a pastoral crisis in thirteenth-century Europe, arguing that the amount of pasture land, and hence herd size, must have diminished during the period, since cereal harvests are known to have increased. However, the rising costs of pasturage in the thirteenth century, which this historian cites as evidence of a shortage caused by declines in pastureland acreage, could have resulted instead from increased demand for pasturage as wool prices rose and sheep flocks grew. In fact, although one study did find high volumes of cereal production together with low ratios of pastureland to cropland in some regions in the thirteenth century, these higher cereal yields could have resulted from new institutional arrangements governing agricultural work rather than from increases in cropland acreage. Furthermore, even a decrease in pastureland acreage may be an ambiguous indicator of herd sizes—for example, as the medieval economy became increasingly oriented to markets, farmers may have expanded production of cereals such as oats to feed the working draft animals (oxen and horses) they needed to haul their crops to market.
The passage suggests that, in the view of most economic historians, which of following was true of medieval farmers who devoted the larger part of their land to pasturing animals?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Economic historians usually assume that the size of animal herds maintained by medieval European farmers was inversely related to medieval cereal production: land devoted to crop farming could not be used for pasturing animals, and vice versa. | What it says: Historians think that in medieval Europe, farmers had to choose - more crops meant fewer animals, more animals meant fewer crops. You can't use the same land for both. What it does: Introduces the basic assumption/theory that the rest of the passage will challenge Source/Type: Historians' assumption (presented as widely accepted belief) Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous information to connect to yet Visualization: Medieval Farm Land: 1000 acres total • Scenario A: 800 acres crops + 200 acres pasture = Big harvest, Small herds • Scenario B: 300 acres crops + 700 acres pasture = Small harvest, Big herds Reading Strategy Insight: This setup sentence establishes the "conventional wisdom" that will be questioned. Don't get overwhelmed by the inverse relationship concept - it's just either/or land use. |
| Thus, one historian has postulated a pastoral crisis in thirteenth-century Europe, arguing that the amount of pasture land, and hence herd size, must have diminished during the period, since cereal harvests are known to have increased. | What it says: One specific historian used the previous assumption to conclude: "Since we know crop harvests got bigger in the 1200s, pasture land and animal herds must have gotten smaller." What it does: Provides a specific example/application of the general assumption from sentence 1 Source/Type: One historian's argument/conclusion Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds directly on sentence 1 - it's the logical conclusion IF the assumption is correct. The historian applied the "inverse relationship" rule to known facts about increased harvests. Visualization: 13th Century Europe (according to this historian): • Known fact: Cereal harvests increased • Applied assumption: More crops = less pasture • Conclusion: Pastoral crisis (fewer animals) What We Know So Far: Basic assumption about land use trade-offs, one historian's specific conclusion What We Don't Know Yet: Whether this conclusion is correct Reading Strategy Insight: The word "Thus" signals this is a logical application, not new complexity. We're still in setup mode. |
| However, the rising costs of pasturage in the thirteenth century, which this historian cites as evidence of a shortage caused by declines in pastureland acreage, could have resulted instead from increased demand for pasturage as wool prices rose and sheep flocks grew. | What it says: BUT WAIT - the evidence that historian used (rising pasture costs) might have a different explanation: higher demand for pasture because wool became valuable and sheep herds actually grew. What it does: Introduces the first challenge/alternative explanation to the historian's conclusion Source/Type: Author's counterargument/alternative interpretation Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly contradicts the previous historian's interpretation. Same evidence (rising pasture costs), completely different explanation. Visualization: Rising Pasture Costs - Two Possible Causes: • Historian's view: Costs up because less pasture available (shortage) • Alternative view: Costs up because more demand (wool boom = more sheep) If wool prices rose from 10 to 20 coins, farmers want more sheep, need more pasture, drive up pasture costs Reading Strategy Insight: "However" is your friend! This signals the author disagrees with that historian. Feel confident - you're about to get the author's real point. |
| In fact, although one study did find high volumes of cereal production together with low ratios of pastureland to cropland in some regions in the thirteenth century, these higher cereal yields could have resulted from new institutional arrangements governing agricultural work rather than from increases in cropland acreage. | What it says: Yes, there's evidence of lots of crops and little pasture in some areas, BUT the big harvests might have come from better work organization, not from converting pasture to cropland. What it does: Provides second alternative explanation - challenges the assumption that more crops automatically means less pasture Source/Type: Research study findings + author's alternative interpretation Connection to Previous Sentences: This reinforces the challenge from sentence 3. The author is systematically dismantling the historian's logic with multiple alternative explanations. Visualization: Two Ways to Get Higher Crop Yields: • Traditional assumption: Convert 200 acres pasture → cropland = more total crop area • Alternative explanation: Keep same 800 acres crops, but organize workers better = more crops per acre Reading Strategy Insight: "In fact" reinforces the previous challenge - this is still the same main point! The author is giving multiple examples of why the original assumption is wrong. |
| Furthermore, even a decrease in pastureland acreage may be an ambiguous indicator of herd sizes—for example, as the medieval economy became increasingly oriented to markets, farmers may have expanded production of cereals such as oats to feed the working draft animals (oxen and horses) they needed to haul their crops to market. | What it says: Even if pastureland did decrease, that doesn't necessarily mean fewer animals. Maybe farmers grew more oats to feed their work animals (oxen, horses) needed for the market economy. What it does: Provides final alternative explanation - challenges the connection between pastureland and total animal numbers Source/Type: Author's reasoning/logical possibility Connection to Previous Sentences: This completes the systematic challenge begun in sentence 3. The author has now questioned every link in the original historian's chain of reasoning. Visualization: Medieval Farm Adapting to Markets: • Converts 100 acres pasture to oat fields • Uses oats to feed 50 draft animals (for hauling to market) • Result: Less pasture but same/more total animals What We Know So Far: Original assumption, one historian's conclusion, three alternative explanations from the author Reading Strategy Insight: "Furthermore" signals this is the final piece of the same argument. The passage structure is simple: Setup → Challenge → Multiple supporting reasons. You should feel MORE confident now - the author has systematically explained why the original assumption is flawed. |
To challenge a historian's conclusion about medieval farming by showing that the evidence can be explained in different ways
The author builds their argument by systematically dismantling a historian's reasoning:
The evidence that one historian used to prove medieval farmers had fewer animals in the 1200s can be explained in other ways that don't support that conclusion at all
This question asks what most economic historians believe about medieval farmers who used most of their land for animals rather than crops. We need to find what the passage says about the general view of economic historians, not the specific historian being challenged or the author's counterarguments.
According to the passage, most economic historians assume an inverse relationship between animal herds and cereal production. If farmers devoted the larger part of their land to pasturing animals, then following this assumption, they would have proportionately less land available for cereal grain production. This directly follows from the either/or land use principle established in the first sentence.
Why It's Wrong:
Common Student Mistakes:
Why It's Right:
Key Evidence: "Economic historians usually assume that the size of animal herds maintained by medieval European farmers was inversely related to medieval cereal production: land devoted to crop farming could not be used for pasturing animals, and vice versa."
Why It's Wrong:
Common Student Mistakes:
Why It's Wrong:
Common Student Mistakes:
Why It's Wrong:
Common Student Mistakes: