Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardEvaluating Intermediate Conclusions

Historian: Recent analyses of medieval European agricultural records reveal a sudden, widespread shift from two-field to three-field crop rotation systems in the early 9th century. Implementing a three-field system required unprecedented communal coordination, as individual peasant landholdings were heavily intermixed. Consequently, the rapid adoption of this system could not have occurred through localized, grassroots consensus alone. Since centralized administrative structures in the 9th century were largely ecclesiastical, it must be the case that monastic networks played a direct role in enforcing these agricultural reforms.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the historian's argument by the claim that the rapid adoption of the three-field system could not have occurred through localized, grassroots consensus alone?

  1. A
    It is the overall main conclusion of the argument, which is supported by the subsequent claim about ecclesiastical structures.
  2. B
    It is a foundational premise that supports the argument's main conclusion but is not itself supported by any other claims in the argument.
  3. C
    It is an observation of a historical phenomenon that the entire argument is primarily designed to explain.
  4. D
    It represents a competing historical hypothesis regarding grassroots consensus that the historian's argument is structured to refute.
  5. It is a subsidiary conclusion derived from the practical difficulties of crop rotation, which in turn justifies the argument's final conclusion regarding monastic involvement.Answer

Answer

The statement acts as a subsidiary (intermediate) conclusion that is deduced from the preceding evidence about coordination requirements and is subsequently used to support the final conclusion about monastic networks.
The statement in question receives logical support from the preceding sentences, which explain why the new agricultural system required immense coordination due to intermixed land. This makes it a conclusion, explicitly marked by the indicator 'Consequently.' However, the argument does not stop there. It uses this deduction—that grassroots consensus wasn't enough—as a springboard to prove its ultimate point: that monastic networks must have been responsible. Therefore, it functions precisely as an intermediate (or subsidiary) conclusion.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
The main conclusion is: 'it must be the case that monastic networks played a direct role in enforcing these agricultural reforms.'
This is the ultimate claim the author is trying to prove, functioning as the endpoint of the logical chain, signaled by 'it must be the case that'.
2
Analyze the structural role of the target statement: 'Consequently, the rapid adoption of this system could not have occurred through localized, grassroots consensus alone.'
The word 'Consequently' indicates this statement is a deduction (conclusion) drawn from the preceding sentences about intermixed landholdings requiring unprecedented coordination.
Structural indicator words reveal when a statement is meant to follow logically from evidence provided.
3
Determine the relationship between the target statement and the main conclusion.
The target statement acts as a premise for the main conclusion. By establishing that grassroots consensus was impossible, the author uses this fact—combined with the premise about ecclesiastical structures—to prove monastic involvement.
A statement that is supported by premises and in turn supports the main conclusion is, by definition, a subsidiary or intermediate conclusion.

Key Concept

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions
Estimated Time:1m 45s
Rate this question

Topics

Evaluating Intermediate Conclusions

More questions from this topic