Loading...
Historian: The practice of primogeniture, under which only oldest sons inherit, had produced in Europe by the time of the Crusades a large population of aristocratic young men lacking any economic resources or prospects at home. For these men, joining a Crusade to the rich lands of the East would have seemed their only opportunity to acquire a fortune.
Which of the following most logically completes the historian's argument below?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| The practice of primogeniture, under which only oldest sons inherit, had produced in Europe by the time of the Crusades a large population of aristocratic young men lacking any economic resources or prospects at home. |
|
| For these men, joining a Crusade to the rich lands of the East would have seemed their only opportunity to acquire a fortune. |
|
The historian starts with a social condition (primogeniture creating broke young nobles), then explains how this condition would logically motivate these men to join the Crusades. The argument builds from cause (inheritance system) to effect (motivation for Crusading).
The argument is setting up to conclude something about why aristocratic young men joined the Crusades, though the actual conclusion will come after 'Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded...'
This follows a cause-and-effect logical structure: Social system (primogeniture) → Created a problem (broke young nobles) → Led to a specific motivation (join Crusades for wealth). The historian is building toward a conclusion about Crusade participation based on economic incentives.
Logically Completes - We need to find what conclusion the historian would reasonably draw from the given evidence about primogeniture creating broke young nobles who saw the Crusades as their only shot at wealth.
The historian makes specific claims about quantity (large population of younger sons), quality (lacking economic resources), and motivation (Crusades seemed like only opportunity). We need a conclusion that flows logically from these premises.
Since this is a 'Logically Completes' question, we need to think about what natural conclusion follows from the historian's chain of reasoning. The argument sets up: 1) Primogeniture left many younger aristocratic sons broke, 2) These men saw Crusades as their only chance to get rich. So what would logically follow? We should look for conclusions about their actual participation in Crusades, their motivations, or the composition of Crusading forces. The conclusion should be something we can reasonably infer even without direct evidence.
This choice logically follows from the historian's argument. We have established that primogeniture created a large population of broke aristocratic younger sons, and that joining the Crusades appeared to be their only path to wealth. If this motivation was strong enough and the population was large enough, we can reasonably conclude that younger sons would be well-represented among Crusade participants. This conclusion flows directly from the premises without requiring additional assumptions.
This goes too far beyond what we can conclude from the given information. The historian only discusses the economic motivations of one specific group (younger aristocratic sons) but says nothing about the motivations of 'most participants' in the Crusades. We cannot conclude that economic motives outweighed all other motives for the majority of Crusaders based solely on information about one demographic group.
This choice makes an unsupported claim about firstborn sons. The historian's argument focuses on younger sons and their lack of economic resources, but provides no information about whether firstborn sons participated for economic reasons or not. We cannot draw conclusions about firstborn sons' motivations from premises that only discuss younger sons.
This represents an extreme overstatement that the historian's argument does not support. The argument explains why broke younger sons would join the Crusades, but it doesn't establish that economic need was the only reason anyone would participate. People with economic resources might have joined for religious, political, or other reasons that the historian simply doesn't address.
This choice focuses on the actual success of younger sons in acquiring fortunes, but the historian's argument is about motivation and participation, not outcomes. The argument tells us why younger sons would want to join the Crusades, but provides no information about whether they actually succeeded in gaining wealth. This conclusion requires evidence about results that isn't provided in the argument.