Economic historians usually assume that the size of animal herds maintained by medieval European farmers was inversely related to medieval...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
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?
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| 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. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To challenge a historian's conclusion about medieval farming by showing that the evidence can be explained in different ways
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by systematically dismantling a historian's reasoning:
- First, the author explains the basic assumption that historians use: medieval farmers had to choose between using land for crops or animals, but not both
- Next, the author presents one historian's specific conclusion: since crop harvests increased in the 1200s, animal herds must have decreased
- Then, the author offers three alternative explanations that challenge this conclusion: rising pasture costs might show increased demand rather than shortage, higher crop yields might come from better work methods rather than more farmland, and less pasture land doesn't necessarily mean fewer total animals
- Finally, the author shows how market changes could actually lead to more animals even with less pasture land
Main Point:
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
1. Question Analysis:
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.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
- The first sentence establishes the key assumption that "most economic historians usually assume" - this is exactly what we need
- The passage analysis shows this assumption creates an "inverse relationship" where more land for animals means less land for crops
- The passage structure shows the author is challenging one specific historian's conclusion, but the basic assumption about land use trade-offs remains the starting point
- All the alternative explanations come later and represent challenges to specific conclusions, not to the basic assumption about land allocation
Prethinking:
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:
- Rising wool prices are mentioned as part of the author's alternative explanation, not as part of what most economic historians believe
- The passage presents this as a counterargument to challenge the specific historian's conclusion
- The question asks about the general view of most historians, not about specific economic factors
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did you confuse the author's counterarguments with the historians' general assumptions?
→ Re-read the first sentence which establishes what "economic historians usually assume" versus the later challenges - Are you focusing on specific details rather than the basic assumption?
→ Look for what the passage says about the general view before the specific debates begin
Why It's Right:
- Directly follows from the inverse relationship assumption stated in the first sentence
- If most land is used for pasturing animals, then less land is available for cereal production
- This represents the basic either/or principle that most economic historians accept according to the passage
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:
- The passage doesn't suggest that using more land for animals was typical of thirteenth-century farmers
- In fact, the specific historian argued that cereal production increased during this period
- The question asks about the general view of historians, not about what was typical in a specific century
Common Student Mistakes:
- Are you confusing the question about historians' views with facts about the thirteenth century?
→ Focus on what historians believe about farmers' land allocation, not on historical trends - Did you mix up the specific time period discussion with the general principle?
→ The question asks about historians' views on land allocation, not about historical patterns
Why It's Wrong:
- Market access is mentioned only in the final sentence as part of the author's alternative explanation
- This is not presented as part of what most economic historians generally believe
- The connection between land use and market access is the author's specific point, not a general historian assumption
Common Student Mistakes:
- Are you selecting details from the author's counterarguments rather than the historians' basic assumptions?
→ Distinguish between what "economic historians usually assume" and the author's specific challenges - Did you focus on the market economy discussion at the end?
→ Remember this is part of the author's alternative explanation, not the general historical view
Why It's Wrong:
- Cereal grain prices are not mentioned anywhere in the passage as part of historians' assumptions
- The passage focuses on land allocation trade-offs, not on price responsiveness
- This choice introduces economic factors that aren't part of the basic assumption described
Common Student Mistakes:
- Are you bringing in outside economic knowledge rather than staying with the passage?
→ Focus only on what the passage states about historians' assumptions - Did you confuse price factors mentioned later with the basic land-use assumption?
→ The basic assumption is about physical land constraints, not price responses