That Native Americans in colonial North America were thrust into a world at least as new as that confronting the...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Mock
...
...
Post a Query
That Native Americans in colonial North America were thrust into a world at least as new as that confronting the ever-increasing numbers of European immigrants and transplanted Africans is a simple yet important truth that students of the period have overlooked. The failure to explore the Native Americans' new world helps to explain why the history of the colonial period often remains a history of Europeans and Africans. One reason Native Americans have been left out may be historians' apparent inability to fit them into the New World theme, a theme that exerts a powerful hold on historians' imagination. From Turner to Allen, from Herskovits to Littlefield, scholars have analyzed encounters between peoples from the Old World and conditions in the New World. Since Native Americans had not recently arrived from a faraway land, it must have seemed logical to exclude them.
Recent research, however, suggests that perhaps historians should think of a "world" as the physical and cultural milieu within which people live and a "new world" as a dramatically different milieu demanding basic changes in ways of life. Considered in these terms, the experience of Native Americans was more closely akin to that of immigrants, and the idea of an encounter between worlds can, and indeed must, include the original inhabitants of America.
Ques. 1/3
In the passage, the author is primarily concerned with
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| That Native Americans in colonial North America were thrust into a world at least as new as that confronting the ever-increasing numbers of European immigrants and transplanted Africans is a simple yet important truth that students of the period have overlooked. | What it says: Native Americans faced just as much change in colonial times as Europeans and Africans did, but historians have ignored this fact. What it does: Presents the main thesis/central claim of the passage Source/Type: Author's opinion/argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous sentences to connect to Visualization: Think of three groups all facing major life changes: • Europeans: 100,000+ people moving to America (big change) • Africans: 500,000+ people transported to America (huge change) • Native Americans: Millions of people whose world was transformed by colonization (equally big change, but historians missed this) What We Know So Far: Native Americans experienced as much "newness" as immigrants What We Don't Know Yet: Why historians overlooked this, what examples support this claim Reading Strategy Insight: This opening sentence gives us the entire argument upfront - everything else will support this central claim |
| The failure to explore the Native Americans' new world helps to explain why the history of the colonial period often remains a history of Europeans and Africans. | What it says: Because historians didn't study how Native Americans experienced change, colonial history focuses mainly on Europeans and Africans. What it does: Explains the consequence/result of the problem identified in sentence 1 Source/Type: Author's analysis of historical scholarship Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 1 told us: Historians overlooked Native American experiences • NOW Sentence 2: Shows the result of this oversight - unbalanced historical narratives • This directly builds on sentence 1 by explaining "so what?" Visualization: Historical scholarship pie chart: • European history: 60% coverage • African history: 30% coverage • Native American history: 10% coverage Why? Because historians didn't recognize Native Americans as experiencing "newness" Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here - this isn't new complexity, it's just explaining why sentence 1 matters |
| One reason Native Americans have been left out may be historians' apparent inability to fit them into the New World theme, a theme that exerts a powerful hold on historians' imagination. | What it says: Historians might exclude Native Americans because they can't figure out how to include them in "New World" studies, which is a very popular historical approach. What it does: Begins to explain the cause of the problem identified in sentences 1-2 Source/Type: Author's hypothesis about historians' thinking Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 1: Historians overlooked Native Americans • Sentence 2: This caused unbalanced history • NOW Sentence 3: Here's WHY historians overlooked them • This continues building the same argument - explaining the reasoning behind the problem Visualization: Historians' mental framework: • "New World theme" = Popular organizing principle for 200+ years of scholarship • Fits Europeans: ✓ (they traveled to new world) • Fits Africans: ✓ (they were brought to new world) • Fits Native Americans: ? (they were already here) What We Know So Far: Problem identified, consequence explained, cause being explored What We Don't Know Yet: Specific examples of this theme, the author's solution Reading Strategy Insight: Still building the problem setup - no new complexity introduced |
| From Turner to Allen, from Herskovits to Littlefield, scholars have analyzed encounters between peoples from the Old World and conditions in the New World. | What it says: Many famous historians (gives 4 examples) have studied how Old World people met New World conditions. What it does: Provides concrete evidence for the "New World theme" mentioned in sentence 3 Source/Type: Factual evidence about scholarly work Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 3 told us: "New World theme" is powerful in historians' imagination • NOW Sentence 4: Here's proof - look at all these major scholars who used this approach • This is supporting evidence, not new information Visualization: Scholarly tradition timeline: • Turner (1890s): Old World Europeans → New World frontier • Allen (mid-1900s): Old World peoples → New World encounters • Herskovits (1940s): Old World Africans → New World adaptations • Littlefield (1970s): Old World cultures → New World changes Common pattern: Old World people experiencing New World conditions Reading Strategy Insight: These are just examples proving sentence 3's point - don't get overwhelmed by the names |
| Since Native Americans had not recently arrived from a faraway land, it must have seemed logical to exclude them. | What it says: It probably made sense to historians to leave out Native Americans because they didn't come from somewhere else. What it does: Completes the explanation of why historians excluded Native Americans Source/Type: Author's logical analysis of historians' reasoning Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentences 3-4 told us: Historians focus on "Old World people meeting New World conditions" • NOW Sentence 5: Since Native Americans weren't "Old World people," historians excluded them • This completes the cause-and-effect explanation started in sentence 3 Visualization: Historians' logical framework: • Europeans: Came from faraway Old World → Include ✓ • Africans: Came from faraway Old World → Include ✓ • Native Americans: Already here → Exclude ✗ What We Know So Far: Problem, consequence, and complete cause all identified What We Don't Know Yet: The author's solution or alternative approach Reading Strategy Insight: We've now fully understood the problem setup. The author will shift to proposing a solution |
| Recent research, however, suggests that perhaps historians should think of a "world" as the physical and cultural milieu within which people live and a "new world" as a dramatically different milieu demanding basic changes in ways of life. | What it says: New studies suggest historians should define "world" as people's living environment and "new world" as any dramatically changed environment that forces people to change how they live. What it does: Introduces the solution/alternative approach to the problem Source/Type: Evidence from recent research (factual basis for author's argument) Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentences 1-5: Explained the problem with traditional "New World" thinking • NOW Sentence 6: Here's a different way to think about "New World" • The word "however" signals this is the turning point - from problem to solution Visualization: Traditional vs. New Definition: Traditional "New World": Geographic location that Old World people travel to • Includes: Europeans and Africans (traveled to America) • Excludes: Native Americans (already in America) New "New World": Any dramatically changed environment • Includes: Anyone whose milieu changed drastically • Could include: Europeans, Africans, AND Native Americans Reading Strategy Insight: This is simplification, not complication - the author is offering a clearer, more inclusive definition |
| Considered in these terms, the experience of Native Americans was more closely akin to that of immigrants, and the idea of an encounter between worlds can, and indeed must, include the original inhabitants of America. | What it says: Using this new definition, Native Americans' experience was similar to immigrants' experiences, and any study of "world encounters" must include Native Americans. What it does: Applies the new definition to reach the conclusion; completes the argument Source/Type: Author's logical conclusion based on the new framework Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 1: Stated that Native Americans experienced as much "newness" as immigrants • Sentences 2-5: Explained why historians missed this • Sentence 6: Offered new definition of "new world" • NOW Sentence 7: Uses new definition to prove sentence 1 was correct • This brings us full circle - we're back to the main thesis with proof Visualization: Under New Definition: • European immigrants: Old familiar milieu → Dramatically different American milieu • Native Americans: Old familiar milieu → Dramatically different colonial milieu • Result: Both groups experienced "new world" - both should be included in historical studies What We Know Now: Complete argument from problem identification to solution implementation Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident - this ending restates and reinforces the opening. The passage has come full circle with a clear, logical argument |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To argue that historians should change how they think about the "New World" concept so that Native Americans can be included in colonial period studies.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by first identifying a problem with current historical scholarship, then explaining why this problem exists, and finally offering a solution:
- First, the author points out that historians have overlooked the fact that Native Americans experienced just as much change during the colonial period as European and African immigrants did.
- Next, the author explains that this oversight has resulted in colonial history focusing mainly on Europeans and Africans while leaving out Native Americans.
- Then, the author identifies why this happened - historians have been using a "New World" framework that only includes people who traveled from far away places, which automatically excludes Native Americans who were already in America.
- Finally, the author presents a solution by suggesting historians should redefine "new world" to mean any dramatically changed environment, which would allow Native Americans to be included since their world changed drastically during colonization.
Main Point:
Native Americans should be included in "New World" historical studies because they experienced just as much dramatic change to their way of life during the colonial period as European and African immigrants did.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify the author's primary purpose throughout the entire passage. We need to determine what the author is fundamentally trying to accomplish - whether they're presenting new facts, fixing errors, suggesting changes, summarizing debates, or evaluating conflicting views.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
Our passage analysis reveals a clear three-part structure that points directly to the author's primary concern:
- Problem Identification: The passage analysis shows that sentences 1-2 establish that historians have overlooked Native Americans' experiences of dramatic change during the colonial period, resulting in unbalanced historical narratives.
- Problem Explanation: Sentences 3-5 explain WHY this happened - historians couldn't fit Native Americans into the popular "New World theme" that focuses on Old World people encountering New World conditions.
- Solution Proposal: Sentences 6-7 present an alternative approach based on recent research, suggesting historians redefine "world" and "new world" to include anyone experiencing dramatic environmental and cultural changes.
Prethinking:
The passage structure clearly shows the author is not just describing what happened or presenting facts - they're actively advocating for change. The key transition word "however" in sentence 6 signals the shift from problem analysis to solution proposal. The author concludes with strong prescriptive language: "the idea of an encounter between worlds can, and indeed must, include the original inhabitants of America." This suggests the author is primarily concerned with recommending a new methodological approach to historical scholarship.
Answer Choices Explained
A
disclosing new evidence
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't present any new factual discoveries or previously unknown information
• The author references "recent research" but doesn't disclose the specific findings - just uses them to support a reframing argument
• The focus is on reinterpreting existing knowledge, not revealing new evidence
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Does the mention of "recent research" mean the author is disclosing new evidence?
→ No - the author uses recent research to support a new interpretive framework, not to present new factual discoveries
1. Isn't the claim about Native Americans experiencing "newness" a new piece of evidence?
→ This is a reinterpretation of known historical facts, not a disclosure of previously unknown evidence
• The passage doesn't present any new factual discoveries or previously unknown information
• The author references "recent research" but doesn't disclose the specific findings - just uses them to support a reframing argument
• The focus is on reinterpreting existing knowledge, not revealing new evidence
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Does the mention of "recent research" mean the author is disclosing new evidence?
→ No - the author uses recent research to support a new interpretive framework, not to present new factual discoveries
1. Isn't the claim about Native Americans experiencing "newness" a new piece of evidence?
→ This is a reinterpretation of known historical facts, not a disclosure of previously unknown evidence
B
correcting a factual error
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't identify any specific factual errors that historians have made
• The problem identified is methodological/interpretive, not factual - historians didn't get facts wrong, they used a framework that excluded relevant experiences
• The author acknowledges that excluding Native Americans "must have seemed logical" given the traditional framework
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Isn't the oversight of Native Americans a factual error?
→ No - it's an interpretive limitation caused by the framework historians used, not a mistake about facts
1. Don't historians need to correct their understanding?
→ Yes, but they need to change their approach/methodology, not fix factual errors
• The passage doesn't identify any specific factual errors that historians have made
• The problem identified is methodological/interpretive, not factual - historians didn't get facts wrong, they used a framework that excluded relevant experiences
• The author acknowledges that excluding Native Americans "must have seemed logical" given the traditional framework
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Isn't the oversight of Native Americans a factual error?
→ No - it's an interpretive limitation caused by the framework historians used, not a mistake about facts
1. Don't historians need to correct their understanding?
→ Yes, but they need to change their approach/methodology, not fix factual errors
C
recommending a new approach
Why It's Right:
• The passage explicitly proposes that historians "should think" about concepts differently - this is directly recommending a new methodological approach
• The structure moves from identifying a limitation in current approaches to proposing an alternative framework
• The conclusion uses prescriptive language ("can, and indeed must") indicating the author wants historians to adopt this new approach
Key Evidence: "Recent research, however, suggests that perhaps historians should think of a 'world' as the physical and cultural milieu within which people live and a 'new world' as a dramatically different milieu demanding basic changes in ways of life."
• The passage explicitly proposes that historians "should think" about concepts differently - this is directly recommending a new methodological approach
• The structure moves from identifying a limitation in current approaches to proposing an alternative framework
• The conclusion uses prescriptive language ("can, and indeed must") indicating the author wants historians to adopt this new approach
Key Evidence: "Recent research, however, suggests that perhaps historians should think of a 'world' as the physical and cultural milieu within which people live and a 'new world' as a dramatically different milieu demanding basic changes in ways of life."
D
summarizing a scholarly debate
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't present multiple sides of an ongoing academic debate
• No conflicting scholarly positions are described - just one dominant approach and the author's alternative
• The focus is on advocating for change, not neutrally summarizing different viewpoints
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't mentioning Turner, Allen, Herskovits, and Littlefield show a scholarly debate?
→ No - these scholars all used the same "New World" approach; they represent consensus, not debate
1. Isn't "recent research" vs. traditional approaches a kind of debate?
→ The author isn't neutrally summarizing - they're advocating for the recent research approach
• The passage doesn't present multiple sides of an ongoing academic debate
• No conflicting scholarly positions are described - just one dominant approach and the author's alternative
• The focus is on advocating for change, not neutrally summarizing different viewpoints
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't mentioning Turner, Allen, Herskovits, and Littlefield show a scholarly debate?
→ No - these scholars all used the same "New World" approach; they represent consensus, not debate
1. Isn't "recent research" vs. traditional approaches a kind of debate?
→ The author isn't neutrally summarizing - they're advocating for the recent research approach
E
assessing conflicting information
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't present conflicting pieces of information that need evaluation
• There's no comparison of contradictory evidence or competing claims
• The author builds a unified argument rather than weighing different types of information
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the contrast between traditional and recent research represent conflicting information?
→ These represent different interpretive frameworks, not conflicting factual information
1. Isn't the author evaluating the merit of different approaches?
→ The author advocates for one approach over another rather than neutrally assessing conflicting information
• The passage doesn't present conflicting pieces of information that need evaluation
• There's no comparison of contradictory evidence or competing claims
• The author builds a unified argument rather than weighing different types of information
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the contrast between traditional and recent research represent conflicting information?
→ These represent different interpretive frameworks, not conflicting factual information
1. Isn't the author evaluating the merit of different approaches?
→ The author advocates for one approach over another rather than neutrally assessing conflicting information
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More