Q19

[williams.maryelizabeth]

How is the correct answer E? (Present day interpretations of the significance of symbols in wampum are not conclusive).

It seems to me that the author explains present day interpretations of the significance of the symbols in lines 48- 54. In fact, the author states (paraphrasing here): belts formed icons that could be deciphered by those knowing their significance. Then goes on to explain that longhouses represent a nation, council fires represent peace talks, and lines between icons represent relationships.

Is the problem that the author is claiming that in the past these symbols were understood, but in the present they are not. If that is the case, how can the author explain what the icons mean. The author's explanation of the iconography seems conclusive.

I think D is a better answer.

[harleywferguson]

You noted that you believe D was a better answer so I will start there. I originally chose D under timed conditions as well but as I am reviewing I believe I see why D is wrong.

D states " long-term peaceful association....was an important PRECONDITION for the use of wampum as a means of COMMUNICATION."
I believe this is wrong because wampum was established as a means of communication multiple times prior to this haudenosuane confederacy(see lines 21-21 where it "represents basic ideas" aka communicates basic ideas. Also lines 34-36 where it says wampum string was used to send simple political messages) It is not until after these uses of wampum were already around that the long term peaceful association of the haudenosaune confederacy came about therefore it could not be a pre-condition for the use of wampum as a means of communication. If anything those long standing uses of wampum were a precondition of the wampum belts(which is what question 17 says basically.)

Now for why I finally settled on E being right. I originally focused my search on line 5-7 I realized this was the wrong place to look and focused on the last paragraph instead. Line 49 when explaining longhouses uses the word "usually"...line 50 uses the word "possibly"...and line 53 uses the phrase "lines between human-like figures SEEM to have indicated..." The deliberate usage of what I consider qualifier words indicates to me that they are not conclusive. Think of it this way for example, if you were to discover that contrary to line 53, lines between human-like figures indicated that it was going to rain cats and dogs, the author would reply "well it only SEEMED to indicate the current state of affairs...I never said it for sure did." So thinking of it that way illustrates that the interpretations are not CONCLUSIVE but rather they think they are right but not sure.

Hopefully I helped and if I am misguided in my interpretations of the answers anyone reading this feel free to correct me. I created an account just so I could answer your question after months of using the forum...

[ohthatpatrick]

Welcome (officially) to the forum, Harley. Great response!

Here's an official explanation.

Question Type: "inferred" / "implies" / "suggests" / "most likely to agree" ... no keywords

We need to pick an answer that we can support with some line reference.

Because this asks what THE AUTHOR would agree to, if there is any section of the passage that we knew was Author Zone, we should expect to support our answer with a line reference from there. Any sections of the passage that were neutral, factual, or other people would be bad sources of support.

POTENTIALLY EASY ELIMINATIONS: extreme, comparative, or out of scope claims

POTENTIALLY GOOD ANSWER: safe, wishy-washy wording that is easy to support

(A) out of scope - "in addition to Haudenosaune"?

(B) extreme / out of scope - "insisted .. in spite of ... true significance"?

(C) out of scope - we never talked about Europeans using wampum for anything but currency

(D) extreme - "Precondition"? Without a long-time peaceful association, the Haudenosaune could not have used wampum as a means of communication?

(E) wishy-washy / safe - We can support this with lines 49, 50, 53, in which the author hedges his wording a little bit in terms of saying what each wampum symbol means.

To see how safe a claim (E) is, picture disagreeing with it:
ALL present day interpretations of wampum symbols are conclusive?

Hope this helps.

[Camiller]

I made the mistake of choosing (D). So, I'd like to add to Patrick's post by pointing out that (D) is actually contradicted by lines 37-39, in which the author asserts thats the Haudenosaune Confederacy formed from a group of "warring tribes".

[michellemyxu]

I was down to (C) and (E) and couldn't quite figure out why (C) is wrong. In the first paragraph, line 7-9, doesn't it say "wampum certainly did become a medium of exchange among Europeans and H"?

[ohthatpatrick]

It does. It basically says, "Prior to the Europeans, wampum was a form of communication, primarily political in nature."

"Once the Europeans arrived, wampum was also used as currency."

(C) is saying that Europeans used wampum in the "long-standing" ways the Haudenosaune used it.

So, (C) is saying "Europeans used wampum as a form of communication, primarily political in nature."

Do we have any evidence of that?