Q21

[bizzybone1313]

This question was really confusing to me. It seems that the first paragraph mentions the historical studies of the past and recent ones. How do we know which studies we are suppose to find an analogy for? Can one of you Manhattan instructors kindly break this question down in terms of right and wrong answers? This question seems to me as if it deserved to be tossed out. The correct answer is C, which is analogous to the earlier studies blended to form an American national character. However, the historians are arguing for something completely different in their new scholarship. What am I missing?

[christine.defenbaugh]

I'm so glad you asked, bizzybone1313!

First, you've got some excellent thinking going on here - you know that we need to refer back to the text to zero in on what we're analogizing, and you know that there are arguments from historians from the past and from the present, and they have wildly different flavors. And the kernel of your question 'how do we know which' is exactly the lynchpin to answering this question.

So, let's just go over process: for analogy inference questions, we've got to first zero in on what passage item we're meant to be assessing.

The line reference here is our life raft. It points us not only to the historians mentioned in paragraph 1, but specifically points us to line 4! Which historians are mentioned in line 4? The earlier historians! And those earlier historians argued "that the ethnic identity of various immigrant groups to the United States blended to form an American national character."

Now we know that we need something that matches up with blending! The only answer choice that does is (C), with style merging to form an American style.

The UnMatchable
(A) "persisted" matches the new preservationist historians
(B) this answer is neutral, and doesn't clear match up with anyone
(D) "preserved" matches the new preservationist historians
(E) "sustained" matches the new preservationist historians


If this question had directed us only to paragraph 1, you're completely correct that there would have been no way to determine which historians they were after. But the specificity of the line reference saves the day.

Takeaway: Always check the specific line reference, if they give you one!

Does that help clear this one up?