Q26

[axelleklincke]

Hello. I did this section twice. For question 26, both times I was selecting between answer choices C and D, and both times I incorrectly selected C. Please help! Thanks.

[slimjimsquinn]

Paragraph 2 is where the author attacks one of Rubinstein's premises. Rubinstein supports his claim that London-based merchant elite are more powerful based through probate records.

Rubinstein says "Look, probate records show merchants hold more property. These fortunes are more often made in commerce than industry. Merchants MUST have been more powerful."

The author points out a necessary assumption. In order for the merchants to be powerful, the probate records must accurately indicate their wealth. But the author points out a flaw in the way probate records were assessed. They left out a crucial indicator: merchants' favor with the public. The author says public favor (how well we think of companies such as Apple, Chick Fil A, Walmart etc.) affects their market value. So what if it was the case that merchants were seen as these posh/snobby elites and industrial heads were seen as job creators for the common man? Then the market value would be reversed.

In question 26, we're asked to support or strengthen Rubinstein's claim. Answer choice D does this by fixing that necessary assumption. It says that the value of industrialists' companies would remain the same even if public favor was factored in. Answer choice D in effect makes the author's criticism a non-issue.

A) Hurts the idea that Londoners were on top.
B) Hurts the idea that Londoners were on top. We find out in the first paragraph to be targeted is to have power. We're trying to prove that the Londoners were the target. Not industrialists.

C) They're trying to get us to peg goods to manufacturers and cash assets to merchants!
Manufacturers could have goods AND cash assets. We dont' care about the form we care about the comparative amount between manufacturers and merchants.

E) Who cares what the governing elite own? We don't know yet that the governing elite is mostly comprised of industrialists. What if the portion of real property is owned by civil servants or bishops? We don't know the distribution of the property.

Did that make sense? This was one tripped me up because of economic jargon.

[s.atrmachin3]

I arrived at answer (D), but I think the reason it is correct is different from that stated above:

In lines 17-18, the author tells us that probate records exclude real property (buildings and land) in their valuations.

In lines 19-22, the author essentially says that Rubenstein's claim from lines 7-9 ("that the real wealth lay with bankers and merchants of London") seems to be supported by the apparent "fact" that "large fortunes were more frequently made in commerce than in industry..."

In lines 24-27, however, the author apparently undercuts the aforementioned support to Ruby's claim (mills and factories were excluded in valuing assets).

So answer choice (D), in positing a study that shows that the wealth of British industrialists didn't appear to be greater once the full value of their previously excluded real property (mills and factories) was taken into account, "eliminates" the author's objection to the line 19-22 support, thereby supporting Ruby's claim.

[ohthatpatrick]

Nice tweak.

The 2nd paragraph was where the author listed several ways in which Ruby's numbers may have been skewed in favor of merchants:

- industrialists hold a lot of their wealth in real property, such as factories, machines, equipment (and all those were excluded from probate numbers)

- industrialists hold wealth in terms of inventory that has not yet been sold (goods-for-sale), whereas merchants hold much wealth in terms of cash assets. The author was saying that goods-for-sale were potentially accounted before BELOW market value (skewing industrialists' wealth lower) whereas cash assets would have been accounted for AT market value. So answer choice (C) actually sounds like it weakens Ruby's case, because this would confirm the author's suspicion that goods for sale didn't get valued as highly as cash assets.

- industrialists had intangible value in terms of goodwill reputation.

So (D) really seems to address the 1st and maybe the 2nd complaint. I don't think the intangible value of goodwill would be considered part of a "real property holding", even though the value SHOULD somehow be part of an estimate of someone's overall wealth.

Yay, economics. Anyone wanna go to law school instead?

[WaltGrace1983]

Nice tweak.

The 2nd paragraph was where the author listed several ways in which Ruby's numbers may have been skewed in favor of merchants:

- industrialists hold a lot of their wealth in real property, such as factories, machines, equipment (and all those were excluded from probate numbers)

- industrialists hold wealth in terms of inventory that has not yet been sold (goods-for-sale), whereas merchants hold much wealth in terms of cash assets. The author was saying that goods-for-sale were potentially accounted before BELOW market value (skewing industrialists' wealth lower) whereas cash assets would have been accounted for AT market value. So answer choice (C) actually sounds like it weakens Ruby's case, because this would confirm the author's suspicion that goods for sale didn't get valued as highly as cash assets.

- industrialists had intangible value in terms of goodwill reputation.

So (D) really seems to address the 1st and maybe the 2nd complaint. I don't think the intangible value of goodwill would be considered part of a "real property holding", even though the value SHOULD somehow be part of an estimate of someone's overall wealth.

Yay, economics. Anyone wanna go to law school instead?

Wouldn't (C) strengthen Ruby's case, just not in a significant way? Ruby believes that merchants had more wealth than industrialists and examines probate records to back up this claim. If we say that values of goods for sale (most likely attributed to industrialists) were not as high as values for cash assets (most likely attributed to merchants), then this would make one believe just a bit more that merchants have more wealth than industrialists. After all, their cash assets are more valuable than their goods for sale!

Either way though, we still don't know if "probate values" tell the whole picture! (D) does a much better job at strengthening because it does show why the probate values paint a much more accurate picture than what the author believes: the industrialists' value when real property is considered is not too drastically different than when real property is NOT considered. As we see in line 17, probate valuations do not include "real property."

IF real property WAS considered and it had shown us that merchants made BANK on their real property, it would invalidate the evidence that Ruby poses in order to get to the conclusion, just like in logical reasoning!

[maryadkins]

Well, your interpretation of (C) as strengthening would work in the way you present it, but that's not the way that value is being discussed in this part of the passage re: probate. The idea is that Ruby used probate records to determine what was valued. If goods were undervalued in the probate records, that means they were MORE valued outside of probate and that weakens his case. "Probate value" here is going to mean how it's valued in probate, not how it's valued outside of probate...again, that's something you just have to infer from the text.