Notwithstanding the early twentieth-century writings of Calvin Dill Wilson and John Russell, for years historians paid scant attention to affluent...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Mock
...
...
Post a Query
Notwithstanding the early twentieth-century writings of Calvin Dill Wilson and John Russell, for years historians paid scant attention to affluent Black Americans in the nineteenth-century South. The "scientific historians" of the William A. Dunning school-Walter Lynwood Fleming, Mildred Thompson, James W. Garner, among others-virtually ignored Black landholders and prosperous Black business people, but this neglect was also true, in part, of a later group of revisionist historians-Carter G. Woodson, Abram Harris, Merah Stuart, and others-who attacked the Dunning school's assumptions. Even during the 1960's and 1970's, when historians' interest in research on the Black experience in the United States was at a peak, historians of the post-Civil War years of the nineteenth century focused on issues of racial exploitation, Black culture and consciousness, and Black political activities, rather than on the financial achievements of affluent Black Americans. In 1977, though, the writings of David Rankin and Gary Mills ignited new interest in this subject, and subsequent studies began asking how Black Americans had acquired substantial amounts of wealth, given the slavery, racism, and political oppression of the nineteenth century. Yet we still have only a vague understanding of Black Americans who managed to become affluent, how much property they accumulated, and how their wealth changed over generations; we know even less about their demographic characteristics in different parts of the nineteenth-century South.
Ques. 1/3
The passage suggests which of the following about the writings of Calvin Dill Wilson and John Russell?
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Notwithstanding the early twentieth-century writings of Calvin Dill Wilson and John Russell, for years historians paid scant attention to affluent Black Americans in the nineteenth-century South. | What it says: Despite some early work by Wilson and Russell, historians mostly ignored wealthy Black Americans in the 1800s South. What it does: Introduces the main topic and establishes that there was historical neglect of this subject. Source/Type: Author's factual claim about historical scholarship patterns. Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our opening sentence - establishes the foundation. Visualization: Timeline showing early 1900s with Wilson & Russell writing about wealthy Black Americans, but most other historians ignoring this topic entirely. Reading Strategy Insight: This sets up a "neglect story" - watch for how this develops chronologically. What We Know So Far: Historians generally ignored wealthy Black Americans in 1800s South What We Don't Know Yet: Who exactly ignored them, why, and what happened later |
| The "scientific historians" of the William A. Dunning school-Walter Lynwood Fleming, Mildred Thompson, James W. Garner, among others-virtually ignored Black landholders and prosperous Black business people, but this neglect was also true, in part, of a later group of revisionist historians-Carter G. Woodson, Abram Harris, Merah Stuart, and others-who attacked the Dunning school's assumptions. | What it says: Both the Dunning school historians AND the revisionist historians who criticized them also ignored wealthy Black Americans. What it does: Provides specific examples and shows the neglect was widespread across different historical schools. Source/Type: Author's factual analysis of historical scholarship trends. Connection to Previous Sentences: This ELABORATES on sentence 1's claim about "scant attention" by giving us concrete examples. This is helpful detail, not new complexity! Visualization: Two groups of historians: Group 1 (Dunning school: Fleming, Thompson, Garner) + Group 2 (Revisionists: Woodson, Harris, Stuart) = Both ignoring wealthy Black Americans, even though Group 2 disagreed with Group 1 on other things. Reading Strategy Insight: Notice the author is building evidence for the same point - this reinforces rather than complicates the neglect theme. What We Know So Far: Multiple schools of historians ignored this topic What We Don't Know Yet: What happened more recently |
| Even during the 1960's and 1970's, when historians' interest in research on the Black experience in the United States was at a peak, historians of the post-Civil War years of the nineteenth century focused on issues of racial exploitation, Black culture and consciousness, and Black political activities, rather than on the financial achievements of affluent Black Americans. | What it says: Even in the 1960s-70s when Black history was popular, historians still focused on other topics instead of wealthy Black Americans. What it does: Extends the timeline to show the neglect continued even during periods of high interest in Black history. Source/Type: Author's factual claim about recent historical scholarship. Connection to Previous Sentences: This CONTINUES the same story from sentences 1-2. The word "Even" signals this is still the same neglect pattern! We're moving chronologically: early 1900s → 1960s-70s, but it's the same basic point. Visualization: 1960s-70s = Peak interest in Black history, but historians studying: racial exploitation, culture, consciousness, politics. NOT studying: wealth and financial success of Black Americans. Reading Strategy Insight: "Even during" = signal phrase that this continues the neglect story. Feel confident - this isn't new complexity! What We Know So Far: From early 1900s through 1970s, historians consistently ignored wealthy Black Americans What We Don't Know Yet: When/if this changed |
| In 1977, though, the writings of David Rankin and Gary Mills ignited new interest in this subject, and subsequent studies began asking how Black Americans had acquired substantial amounts of wealth, given the slavery, racism, and political oppression of the nineteenth century. | What it says: In 1977, Rankin and Mills sparked new interest, and studies started examining how Black Americans became wealthy despite major obstacles. What it does: Introduces the turning point - when the neglect finally ended. Source/Type: Author's factual claim about recent scholarly developments. Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the CONTRAST to sentences 1-3. "Though" signals the shift! We've been building up decades of neglect, and now we get the change moment. Visualization: Timeline: Early 1900s through 1970s = neglect. 1977 = Rankin & Mills = turning point. After 1977 = new studies asking "How did Black Americans get wealthy despite slavery, racism, and oppression?" Reading Strategy Insight: This is the classic "but then things changed" moment in RC passages. The contrast word "though" should make you feel relieved - the story is progressing logically! What We Know So Far: Long period of neglect ended in 1977 with new interest What We Don't Know Yet: What we currently know/don't know about this topic |
| Yet we still have only a vague understanding of Black Americans who managed to become affluent, how much property they accumulated, and how their wealth changed over generations; we know even less about their demographic characteristics in different parts of the nineteenth-century South. | What it says: Despite the new interest since 1977, our knowledge is still limited - we don't know much about who these wealthy people were, how much they had, how wealth changed over time, or their demographics across different Southern regions. What it does: Concludes by explaining current knowledge gaps and setting up why more research is needed. Source/Type: Author's assessment of current state of knowledge. Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds directly on sentence 4. "Yet" shows that despite the 1977 turning point, we still have work to do. This is the logical conclusion to the whole progression: neglect → some progress → but still gaps remain. Visualization: What we know: Some wealthy Black Americans existed in 1800s South. What we still don't know: Who they were, how much wealth they had, how wealth changed across generations, demographics across different Southern regions. Reading Strategy Insight: This is a classic "current state" conclusion. The author has taken us from neglect to current gaps - this completes a logical story arc rather than adding complexity. Final Summary - What We Know: Long historical neglect of wealthy Black Americans in 1800s South, some progress since 1977, but major knowledge gaps remain Reading Confidence Check: This passage follows a simple chronological pattern: neglect → turning point → current gaps. Each sentence reinforces this logical progression! |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To trace the historical development of scholarly attention toward wealthy Black Americans in the nineteenth-century South, showing how this topic was long ignored and explaining why major knowledge gaps still exist today.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their explanation in a clear timeline that shows how historians have treated this topic over time:
- First, the author establishes that historians mostly ignored wealthy Black Americans in the 1800s South, despite some early work by a few writers
- Next, the author proves this neglect was widespread by showing that different schools of historians - even ones who disagreed with each other - all made the same mistake of ignoring this topic
- Then, the author extends this pattern to show that even during the peak years of Black history research in the 1960s and 1970s, historians still focused on other topics instead of wealth and financial success
- Finally, the author explains that while things started to change in 1977 with new interest in the topic, we still have major gaps in our knowledge about who these wealthy people were and how they achieved success
Main Point:
Despite decades of historical scholarship and a recent increase in interest, we still know very little about wealthy Black Americans in the nineteenth-century South - who they were, how much wealth they had, and how they managed to succeed despite major obstacles.
1. Question Analysis:
The question asks what the passage suggests about the writings of Calvin Dill Wilson and John Russell. These writers are mentioned only in the opening sentence, so we need to understand their role in the context of the overall passage.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we know that:
- The passage follows a timeline showing historical neglect of wealthy Black Americans in the 1800s South
- Wilson and Russell are mentioned in the very first sentence with the word \"Notwithstanding\"
- The passage establishes that \"for years historians paid scant attention to affluent Black Americans\" despite Wilson and Russell's early writings
- The passage then shows how this neglect continued across different schools of historians through the 1970s
- Only in 1977 did new interest emerge with Rankin and Mills
Prethinking:
The word \"Notwithstanding\" in the opening sentence is key - it means \"despite\" or \"in spite of.\" This suggests that Wilson and Russell were exceptions to the general pattern of neglect. Since the passage shows that most historians from the early 1900s through 1977 ignored this topic, Wilson and Russell must have been unusual in actually addressing wealthy Black Americans in the nineteenth-century South. This makes them atypical compared to the historical mainstream before 1977.
Answer Choices Explained
A
They virtually ignored the history of affluent Black Americans in the nineteenth-century South.
Why It's Wrong:
• This contradicts the opening sentence structure where Wilson and Russell are presented as exceptions ("Notwithstanding") • The passage states that other historians "virtually ignored" this topic, not Wilson and Russell • This choice confuses Wilson and Russell with the Dunning school historians who are explicitly said to have ignored affluent Black Americans Common Student Mistakes:
• This contradicts the opening sentence structure where Wilson and Russell are presented as exceptions ("Notwithstanding") • The passage states that other historians "virtually ignored" this topic, not Wilson and Russell • This choice confuses Wilson and Russell with the Dunning school historians who are explicitly said to have ignored affluent Black Americans Common Student Mistakes:
- Did I misread who ignored whom in the complex opening sentence?
→ Reread the sentence structure: "Notwithstanding [Wilson and Russell], for years historians paid scant attention" means despite Wilson and Russell's work, others ignored the topic - Am I confusing Wilson and Russell with the later historians mentioned?
→ Track each group carefully: Wilson/Russell (early exceptions) vs. Dunning school (ignored the topic) vs. revisionists (also ignored it)
B
They were rejected by the revisionist school that included Carter G. Woodson, Abram Harris, and Merah Stuart.
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't mention any connection between Wilson/Russell and the revisionist school • The revisionists are described as attacking the Dunning school's assumptions, not Wilson and Russell's work • Wilson and Russell wrote much earlier (early twentieth century) than the revisionist response to Dunning Common Student Mistakes:
• The passage doesn't mention any connection between Wilson/Russell and the revisionist school • The revisionists are described as attacking the Dunning school's assumptions, not Wilson and Russell's work • Wilson and Russell wrote much earlier (early twentieth century) than the revisionist response to Dunning Common Student Mistakes:
- Am I assuming connections between historical groups that aren't stated in the passage?
→ Stick to what's explicitly stated; the passage doesn't connect Wilson/Russell to the revisionist school at all - Am I confusing the timeline of different historical schools?
→ Wilson/Russell were early 1900s; revisionists came later as a response to the Dunning school
C
They were critical of the assumptions made by the "scientific historians" of the Dunning school.
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't state that Wilson and Russell criticized the Dunning school • Wilson and Russell wrote in the early twentieth century, and their relationship to the Dunning school isn't discussed • The revisionist historians (Woodson, Harris, Stuart) are the ones described as attacking Dunning school assumptions Common Student Mistakes:
• The passage doesn't state that Wilson and Russell criticized the Dunning school • Wilson and Russell wrote in the early twentieth century, and their relationship to the Dunning school isn't discussed • The revisionist historians (Woodson, Harris, Stuart) are the ones described as attacking Dunning school assumptions Common Student Mistakes:
- Am I confusing Wilson/Russell with the revisionist historians who actually criticized Dunning?
→ Separate these groups clearly: Wilson/Russell (early writers) vs. revisionists (later critics of Dunning) - Am I making assumptions about what early writers must have thought about later schools?
→ The passage doesn't establish any relationship between Wilson/Russell and the Dunning school
D
They laid the foundation for the revival of interest in the 1960's and 1970's in the political activities of Black Americans in the years following the Civil War.
Why It's Wrong:
• The 1960s-1970s interest focused on "racial exploitation, Black culture and consciousness, and Black political activities," not wealth • Wilson and Russell wrote in the early twentieth century, not about political activities specifically • The passage shows the 1960s-1970s period continued the same neglect of affluent Black Americans that Wilson and Russell had addressed Common Student Mistakes:
• The 1960s-1970s interest focused on "racial exploitation, Black culture and consciousness, and Black political activities," not wealth • Wilson and Russell wrote in the early twentieth century, not about political activities specifically • The passage shows the 1960s-1970s period continued the same neglect of affluent Black Americans that Wilson and Russell had addressed Common Student Mistakes:
- Am I connecting Wilson/Russell to the wrong time period or topic focus?
→ Wilson/Russell were early 1900s and focused on affluent Black Americans; 1960s-70s historians focused on different topics - Did I miss that the 1960s-70s period still showed neglect of the wealth topic?
→ Reread: even during peak interest in Black history, historians "rather than" focused on financial achievements
E
They were atypical of most historical writings before 1977 in that they addressed the history of affluent Black Americans in the nineteenth-century South.
Why It's Right:
• The word "Notwithstanding" establishes Wilson and Russell as exceptions to the general pattern of neglect • The passage shows systematic neglect by multiple schools of historians from early 1900s through 1970s • Wilson and Russell addressed the topic of affluent Black Americans when most others did not • They were unusual in their focus until the 1977 revival of interest by Rankin and Mills Key Evidence: "Notwithstanding the early twentieth-century writings of Calvin Dill Wilson and John Russell, for years historians paid scant attention to affluent Black Americans in the nineteenth-century South."
• The word "Notwithstanding" establishes Wilson and Russell as exceptions to the general pattern of neglect • The passage shows systematic neglect by multiple schools of historians from early 1900s through 1970s • Wilson and Russell addressed the topic of affluent Black Americans when most others did not • They were unusual in their focus until the 1977 revival of interest by Rankin and Mills Key Evidence: "Notwithstanding the early twentieth-century writings of Calvin Dill Wilson and John Russell, for years historians paid scant attention to affluent Black Americans in the nineteenth-century South."
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More