Q22 - For the writers who

[Greatsk8erman]

I got it right.... lucky... but HUH?? All I had to get me through this one was F-->NC--->both titles and titles are sanctioned by law. then it goes on to say that Feudalism was in the 8th century, but it wasn't until the 12th that nobility titles were sanctioned by law, so by this statement, it would be clear that feudalism couldn't exist until THEN. But it did clearly, it states that. So is that why (A) is correct? Because it basically goes against what historically happened?? I feel like I might be on the right track for this one, but please correct me if I'm wrong.. thanks!!

[giladedelman]

Thanks for your post.

You are totally on the right track; you're just missing a little detail. Notice that the first statement is actually about what these particular writers believed: according to them, feudalism requires the existence of a noble class.

Then the statements go on to tell us that feudalism existed centuries before at least one of the necessary conditions for a noble class first appeared. If feudalism existed without one of these conditions -- and, therefore, without the existence of nobility -- then the writers' belief must be incorrect: feudalism must not presuppose the existence of a noble class.

(A) is correct, then, because it basically makes this point: to say that feudalism requires nobility goes against the historical record.

(B) is incorrect because it swaps "dominant class" in for "noble class." We don't know anything about a "dominant class."

(C) is incorrect because it generalizes from nobility to social class in general.

(D) is just bonkers. Where does it talk about the rise of nobility? Where does it talk about something causing that rise? Something being the only cause? Totally out of scope.

(E) reverses the belief that the statements disprove. Anyway, there's no support for the idea that feudalism is necessary for nobility.

Does that clear this one up for you?

[Greatsk8erman]

Yes! Thanks!

[boy5237]

I have a quick question.

I tried to solved this question by diagramming out the premises:

What I got was:

Feudalism -> Noble Class
~Title and ~Inheritance -> ~Noble Class

Then it goes and says: Feudalism existed even in 8th but inheritance wasn't possible until 12th.

So if you actually take a contrapositive of second premise, you get
Noble Class -> Title or Inheritance

Just by looking at the conditional logic, I thought that, Noble class required one of the those two necessary factors.

Since inheritance wasn't possible until 12th, which have meant that Feudalism that existed in 8th must have had the title.

SO... I thought it doesn't distort history, but just that

Feudalism -> Noble Class -> Title or Inheritance but No Inheritance, therefore Title.

Am I missing something... I feel like just rambling on...
Help!

[monygg85]

I think this question comes down to this Nobility --> Titles and inheritance of such titles sanctioned by law.

So the "writers" mentioned in the stimulus presupposed the existence of a noble class. So, feudalism existed in the 8th century but it wasnt until the 12th century when legal title transfers of nobility first happened. Since the author of the stimulus says that there cannot be a noble class unless there are titles sanctioned by law, and this happens in the 12 century, which makes it tough for the thought of feudalism presupposing nobility which in order to exist required things that WERE NOT there/ DIDNT exist at the time.

I think in the end the conclusion is that feudalism did not presuppose nobility bc you needed nobility first and in order to get that you needed titles.

(A) pretty much supports this idea by calling the explanation given by the "writers" one that distorts history.

I think I am sort of on the right track. I am not sure though! Anyone feel free to go over this and correct anything! (I got this question wrong)

[Mab6q]

I'm not a fan of this question. I originally choose A but changed it to B on my review. Let's break the two down.

A. To say that feudalism by definition requires the existence of nobility is to employ a definition that distorts history.

This question has many holes, and despite the fact that this is a most strongly supported question, I think it's hard to justify it being correct. The answer says feudalism by definition... even if we had feudalism then, it could still be true that feudalism by definition does require nobility. "Distorts" is really what threw me off on my review, I felt like it was too strong.

B. Sure, this says dominant class, it's not perfect. How this is a most strongly supported question. How can noble class be anything but the dominant class. If there was no legally recognized titles, we didn't have nobility. I think this is more inferable than A.

Any thoughts from the experts?

[ohthatpatrick]

Good questions.

"Distorts" is really what threw me off on my review, I felt like it was too strong.

Saying that "a certain definition distorts history" DOES sound kinda strong, but it's really just a way to say "this definition doesn't accurately apply to actual history".

If we define feudalism as the writers did, then by that definition, feudalism couldn't have begun until the 12th century.

However, according to the historical facts provided, feudalism began in the 8th century and had even started to die out by the 12th century.

So using the writers' definition forces us to say something historically inaccurate ... "it distorts history".

I definitely see why you were cautious about "distorts history"; it sounds strong. But it's really just a paraphrase of "gives an inaccurate picture of history".

The answer says feudalism by definition... even if we had feudalism then, it could still be true that feudalism by definition does require nobility.

I'm not sure I understand why you think it's compatible for feudalism to EXIST during a certain time frame, even though the definition of feudalism does not apply to what was happening.

To me that's kinda like defining a trio as "a three person group" and then calling Bob and Kevin a trio.

Would we be cool with saying "Bob and Kevin ARE a trio, even if the definition requires a third person"?

Either the definition is wrong or it was wrong to say that these two dudes were a trio. But we can't have it both ways, or else definitions/words have no meaning.

For (B): Sure, this says dominant class, it's not perfect. How this is a most strongly supported question. How can noble class be anything but the dominant class. If there was no legally recognized titles, we didn't have nobility.

I think you're just a little tangled here with the direction of specific/general.

IF we have a noble class, THEN I agree, we have a dominant class.

But all we know is that we DIDN'T have a noble class (properly speaking).

IF we lack a noble class, THEN are we sure we lacked a dominant class?

A dominant class could have taken many forms. It might have been the class of people with the most physical might.

A noble class is a narrowly defined type of dominant class (one in which you could transfer legally recognized titles of nobility through hereditary lines).

So although we know that THAT sort of dominant class was not present prior to the 12th century, we can't speak for sure about other types of dominant classes.

Hope this helps.

[sclw64]

Hi~I could understand why A is correct but I also think C is correct because as said, a social class(noble class) requires the titles and the inheritance of such titles be sanctioned by law (legal status). Thus, a group with distinct legal status is not sufficient to allow the group to be considered as a social class.

[ChunbaixueY378]

Hi~I could understand why A is correct but I also think C is correct because as said, a social class(noble class) requires the titles and the inheritance of such titles be sanctioned by law (legal status). Thus, a group with distinct legal status is not sufficient to allow the group to be considered as a social class.

I had the same question. My opinion is that what the stimulus says is only that what is "required" to define a group as noble class, so we cannot say if anything is "sufficient" to allow a group to be considered as a social class.