Most business historians give the impression that Marseilles, a French Mediterranean city, was in dire economic straits from 1700 to...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Most business historians give the impression that Marseilles, a French Mediterranean city, was in dire economic straits from 1700 to 1715, when France was at war in the Mediterranean area. Their conclusions are based partly on a documented 30 percent decline in revenue generated by the cottimo, an import tax collected on the cargo of ships returning to Marseilles from various Middle Eastern ports. The decline in revenue from this particular tax could hypothetically have been caused by a massive drop in levels of commercial activity in Marseilles. However, during the war years Marseilles' role as a grain importer grew, and most foodstuffs had always been—and remained—exempt from the tax. Also, due to a shift in trading patterns caused by the war, the city's merchants did more business with those Middle Eastern cities on whose trade the cottimo had always been collected at a lower rate. Moreover, during this period, a change occurred in the thinking of Marseilles merchants, who, in response to the war's challenges, displayed a new sense of daring. They sent some ships outside the Mediterranean and began to engage in trade in the Atlantic and Pacific. This was significant, since the cottimo was collected only on goods entering the city from Mediterranean ports in the Middle East.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Most business historians give the impression that Marseilles, a French Mediterranean city, was in dire economic straits from 1700 to 1715, when France was at war in the Mediterranean area. | What it says: Historians think Marseilles had serious economic problems during a 15-year war period. What it does: Sets up the main claim the author will challenge Source/Type: Other researchers' interpretation Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the opening - establishes the conventional wisdom Visualization: Timeline: 1700-1715 (war years) → Historians' view: Marseilles economy = struggling What We Know So Far: There's a debate about Marseilles' economic health during wartime What We Don't Know Yet: Why historians think this, whether it's true, what the author thinks |
| Their conclusions are based partly on a documented 30 percent decline in revenue generated by the cottimo, an import tax collected on the cargo of ships returning to Marseilles from various Middle Eastern ports. | What it says: Historians point to one main piece of evidence: a specific tax revenue dropped by 30% What it does: Provides the key evidence behind historians' claims Source/Type: Documented factual evidence Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly explains WHY historians think Marseilles struggled - gives us the concrete evidence they're using Visualization: Tax Revenue from Middle Eastern trade: Before 1700: 100 units → During 1700-1715: 70 units (30% drop) Reading Strategy Insight: Good! The author is being helpful by immediately explaining the historians' reasoning rather than leaving us guessing. |
| The decline in revenue from this particular tax could hypothetically have been caused by a massive drop in levels of commercial activity in Marseilles. | What it says: One possible explanation: maybe trade activity really did crash What it does: States the historians' interpretation of what the tax decline means Source/Type: Author presenting historians' logical reasoning Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds directly on the previous sentence - if tax revenue dropped 30%, historians assume this means trade dropped 30% Visualization: Historians' Logic: Tax revenue ↓ 30% = Trade activity ↓ massively = Economic crisis Reading Strategy Insight: The word "hypothetically" hints the author may challenge this assumption. Watch for alternative explanations coming. |
| However, during the war years Marseilles' role as a grain importer grew, and most foodstuffs had always been—and remained—exempt from the tax. | What it says: Actually, food imports (which weren't taxed anyway) increased during the war What it does: Begins the author's counter-argument with first piece of contradictory evidence Source/Type: Historical fact presented by author Connection to Previous Sentences: This CONTRASTS with the historians' assumption. If grain trade grew but wasn't taxed, then tax decline doesn't reflect total trade decline Visualization: During war years: • Grain imports: ↑ (growing) • Grain tax revenue: $0 (always exempt) • Other tax revenue: ↓ 30% Reading Strategy Insight: The author is systematically dismantling the historians' logic by showing tax revenue ≠ total economic activity |
| Also, due to a shift in trading patterns caused by the war, the city's merchants did more business with those Middle Eastern cities on whose trade the cottimo had always been collected at a lower rate. | What it says: War changed trade routes, so merchants traded more with places that were taxed at lower rates What it does: Provides second reason why tax revenue dropped without economic decline Source/Type: Historical fact about wartime trade patterns Connection to Previous Sentences: This ADDS TO the previous counter-argument. Like the grain example, this shows another way tax revenue could drop while business stayed strong Visualization: Trade shifts during war: • High-tax Middle Eastern cities: ↓ trade • Low-tax Middle Eastern cities: ↑ trade • Total trade volume: same or ↑ • Tax revenue: ↓ (due to rate differences) Reading Strategy Insight: This reinforces the same point as the grain example - the author is building a pattern, not introducing new complexity |
| Moreover, during this period, a change occurred in the thinking of Marseilles merchants, who, in response to the war's challenges, displayed a new sense of daring. | What it says: Merchants became more adventurous and bold during the war What it does: Introduces the third and final piece of counter-evidence Source/Type: Author's interpretation of merchant behavior Connection to Previous Sentences: This continues the pattern of counter-arguments. "Moreover" signals we're getting another example in the same series Visualization: Merchant mindset shift: Pre-war: Conservative, traditional During war: Daring, innovative, willing to take risks Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here - this is the third example following the same pattern. The author is reinforcing the argument that war sparked innovation, not decline |
| They sent some ships outside the Mediterranean and began to engage in trade in the Atlantic and Pacific. This was significant, since the cottimo was collected only on goods entering the city from Mediterranean ports in the Middle East. | What it says: Merchants expanded to Atlantic and Pacific trade, which wasn't subject to the cottimo tax at all What it does: Completes the third counter-argument with specific details and explicit connection to tax issue Source/Type: Historical fact plus author's analysis Connection to Previous Sentences: This CONCLUDES and CLARIFIES the "new sense of daring" mentioned in the previous sentence. It also delivers the final blow to historians' argument Visualization: Marseilles trade expansion: • Mediterranean Middle East: traditional, taxed by cottimo • Atlantic: NEW, no cottimo tax • Pacific: NEW, no cottimo tax • Result: More total trade, less cottimo revenue Reading Strategy Insight: This is the climax of the author's argument! The author has systematically shown three ways business could boom while cottimo revenue dropped. What We Know Now: The author has completely undermined historians' evidence by showing tax decline ≠ economic decline Pattern Recognition: Three parallel examples (grain, low-tax routes, non-Mediterranean trade) all point to the same conclusion |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To challenge and disprove the conventional view that Marseilles experienced economic decline during wartime by showing that historians misinterpreted their evidence.
Summary of Passage Structure:
In this passage, the author systematically dismantles a historical interpretation by exposing flaws in the evidence:
- First, the author presents the widely accepted view that Marseilles suffered economically during the war years from 1700 to 1715.
- Next, the author explains what evidence historians use for this claim - specifically, a 30% drop in revenue from a particular import tax and what historians think this means.
- Then, the author provides three counter-arguments showing why tax revenue could drop even while the economy was actually growing: increased grain trade that wasn't taxed, shifts to trading with lower-tax regions, and expansion into completely new markets outside the Mediterranean.
- Finally, the author demonstrates that this new trade expansion was significant because it generated business that would never show up in the tax records historians were using.
Main Point:
The historians were wrong about Marseilles' economic decline because they relied on tax revenue data that didn't capture the full picture of the city's actual economic activity during the war years.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify the primary purpose of the passage - essentially, what is the author's main goal in writing this piece? We need to look at the overall structure and flow of the passage to understand what the author is trying to accomplish.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we can see a clear pattern:
- The author presents the historians' conclusion (Marseilles was in economic decline)
- The author explains the evidence historians used (30% drop in cottimo tax revenue)
- The author systematically challenges this interpretation with three counter-arguments
- The author shows that the evidence doesn't support the historians' conclusion
The passage analysis reveals that the author is "systematically dismantling the historians' logic" and "completely undermined historians' evidence by showing tax decline ≠ economic decline." This is a classic challenge to an interpretation of evidence, not the evidence itself.
Prethinking:
The author isn't disputing that tax revenue dropped 30% - that's documented fact. Instead, the author is arguing that historians misinterpreted what this decline means. The historians assumed: tax revenue drop = economic decline. The author shows: tax revenue drop ≠ economic decline because the tax didn't capture grain trade, shifts to lower-tax regions, or new non-Mediterranean trade. This is fundamentally about challenging how historians interpreted their evidence.
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage doesn't correct what historians concluded, but rather challenges how they reached those conclusions
- The author doesn't dispute that historians believe Marseilles was in decline - this is accurately stated
- The issue is with their reasoning process, not with describing their actual conclusions
Common Student Mistakes:
- Thinking the author is saying historians never actually concluded Marseilles was in decline?
→ The author clearly states historians DO conclude this - the problem is how they got there - Confusing "correcting conclusions" with "challenging the reasoning behind conclusions"?
→ Focus on whether the author disputes WHAT historians think vs. WHY they think it
Why It's Right:
- The passage directly challenges how historians interpreted the cottimo tax decline
- The author doesn't dispute the 30% revenue drop but shows three ways this evidence doesn't support their conclusion
- The structure moves from "historians think this evidence means X" to "this evidence actually doesn't prove X"
Key Evidence: "The decline in revenue from this particular tax could hypothetically have been caused by a massive drop in levels of commercial activity" followed by "However" and three counter-explanations showing alternative interpretations.
Why It's Wrong:
- While the passage mentions war's effects, this is not the primary purpose
- The focus is on challenging historians' interpretation, not on describing historical events
- War effects are discussed only to support the argument against historians' conclusions
Common Student Mistakes:
- Getting distracted by the War of 1700-1715 content and thinking this is a history lesson?
→ Remember that historical details serve the argument, not the other way around - Thinking that because war is mentioned frequently, the passage must be about war's effects?
→ Look at WHY war is discussed - to challenge the historians' interpretation
Why It's Wrong:
- The author isn't defending the historians or explaining why their conclusions were reasonable
- The passage actively challenges what historians concluded, showing they were wrong
- This choice suggests the scholars SHOULD have reached certain conclusions, but the author disputes their actual conclusions
Common Student Mistakes:
- Misreading the author's tone as supportive of the historians?
→ Notice words like "However" and "Moreover" that signal disagreement - Thinking the author is explaining why historians were justified in their reasoning?
→ The author shows their reasoning was flawed, not justified
Why It's Wrong:
- This choice is too broad - the passage specifically challenges historians' interpretation, not general beliefs
- The focus isn't on arguing that trading changes show expansion, but on showing historians misread the evidence
- The passage structure is about evidence interpretation, not about making claims about economic expansion
Common Student Mistakes:
- Thinking this must be right because the author does suggest Marseilles wasn't declining?
→ The primary purpose isn't to prove expansion, but to show flawed interpretation of evidence - Focusing on the author's counter-examples while missing the main point about evidence interpretation?
→ Ask why the author provides these examples - to challenge historians' use of evidence