Reading Comprehension

Colonial historian David Allen's intensive study of five communities in seventeenth-century Massachusetts is a model of meticulous scholarship on the detailed microcosmic level, and is convincing up to a point. Allen suggests that much more coherence and direct continuity existed between English and colonial agricultural practices and administrative organization than other historians have suggested. However, he overstates his case with the declaration that he has proved "the remarkable extent to which diversity in New England local institutions was directly imitative of regional differences in the mother country.

Such an assertion ignores critical differences between seventeenth-century England and New England.; First, England was overcrowded and land-hungry; New England was sparsely populated and labor-hungry. Second, England suffered the normal European rate of mortality; New England, especially in the first generation of English colonists, was virtually free from infectious diseases. Third, England had an all-embracing state church; in New England membership in a church was restricted to the elect. Fourth, a high proportion of English villagers lived under paternalistic resident squires; no such class existed in New England. By narrowing his focus to village institutions and ignoring these critical differences, which studies by Greven, Demos, and Lockridge have shown to be so important, Allen has created a somewhat distorted picture of reality.

Allen's work is a rather extreme example of the "country community" school of seventeenth-century English history whose intemperate excesses in removing all national issues from the history of that period have been exposed by Professor Clive Holmes. What conclusion can be drawn, for example, from Allen's discovery that Puritan clergy who had come to the colonies from East Anglia were one-third to one-half as likely to return to England by 1660 as were Puritan ministers from western and northern England? We are not told in what way, if at all, this discovery illuminates historical understanding. Studies of local history have enormously expanded our horizons, but it is a mistake for their authors to conclude that village institutions are all that mattered, simply because their functions are all that the records of village institutions reveal.

It can be inferred that the author considers Allen's research on seventeenth-century Massachusetts colonies to be
A. inconsequential but interesting
B. largely derivative
C. detailed but problematic
D. highly commendable
E. overly theoretical

I will go with 'C'.

I have used following references on reaching to my conclusion:
Para1: he overstates his case with the declaration that ....
Para2: Allen has created a somewhat distorted picture of reality.
Para3: this discovery illuminates historical understanding


OA Please...

I have to say C as well. The author points out that while Allen's work is "meticulous" and "detailed, but contains "mistake[s]."

A - The time taken to respond to Allen's work would seem to negate the "inconsequential" argument.
B - No reasoning for this.
C - Correct
D - While you COULD infer this, C fits better.
E - No evidence of this.

OA is C, thanks.

According to the passage, which of the following was true of most villages in seventeenth-century England?

(A) The resident squire had significant authority.
(B) Church members were selected on the basis of their social status within the community.
(C) Low population density restricted agricultural and economic growth.
(D) There was little diversity in local institutions from one region to another.
(E) National events had little impact on local customs and administrative organization.

Can anyone explain the answer?

answer to this question is clear by the first sentence of the paragraph. Colonial historian David Allen's intensive study of five communities in seventeenth-century Massachusetts is a model of meticulous scholarship on the detailed microcosmic level, and is convincing up to a point

Then the passage goes on to explain about the problems in his study in rest of the paragraph.

I hope this helps

ruplun wrote:According to the passage, which of the following was true of most villages in seventeenth-century England?

(A) The resident squire had significant authority.
(B) Church members were selected on the basis of their social status within the community.
(C) Low population density restricted agricultural and economic growth.
(D) There was little diversity in local institutions from one region to another.
(E) National events had little impact on local customs and administrative organization.

Can anyone explain the answer?

IMO E.
What is the OA? I got the answer by POE. i havent really got the grasp of the passage!

ruplun wrote:According to the passage, which of the following was true of most villages in seventeenth-century England?

(A) The resident squire had significant authority.
(B) Church members were selected on the basis of their social status within the community.
(C) Low population density restricted agricultural and economic growth.
(D) There was little diversity in local institutions from one region to another.
(E) National events had little impact on local customs and administrative organization.

Can anyone explain the answer?

Let's take it by process of elimination. Look, specifically, at paragraph 2: (I've bolded certain portions)

Such an assertion ignores critical differences between seventeenth-century England and New England.; First, England was overcrowded and land-hungry; New England was sparsely populated and labor-hungry. Second, England suffered the normal European rate of mortality; New England, especially in the first generation of English colonists, was virtually free from infectious diseases. Third, England had an all-embracing state church; in New England membership in a church was restricted to the elect. Fourth, a high proportion of English villagers lived under paternalistic resident squires; no such class existed in New England. By narrowing his focus to village institutions and ignoring these critical differences, which studies by Greven, Demos, and Lockridge have shown to be so important, Allen has created a somewhat distorted picture of reality.

Now, let's look at the answers.

A: "A high proportion of English villagers lived under paternalistic resident squires". We can at least infer from the word "paternalistic" that there was a strong element of authority held by the squire.
B: England had an "all-embracing state church", which implies that church membership was fairly prevalent and was not restricted (as it was in New England).
C: This is clearly not the case in England -- it is overcrowded and land-hungry, hardly indicative of low population.
D: There is no clear evidence from the passage that indicates this. We don't know whether there is diversity in institutions.
E: There is no clear evidence from the passage that indicates that this would be the case. We don't know whether national events had any impact because it isn't mentioned and there is no information from which we can reasonably infer a conclusion.

I would say, A is the most likely correct answer.

ruplun wrote:According to the passage, which of the following was true of most villages in seventeenth-century England?

(A) The resident squire had significant authority.
(B) Church members were selected on the basis of their social status within the community.
(C) Low population density restricted agricultural and economic growth.
(D) There was little diversity in local institutions from one region to another.
(E) National events had little impact on local customs and administrative organization.

Can anyone explain the answer?

Let's take it by process of elimination. Look, specifically, at paragraph 2: (I've bolded certain portions)

Such an assertion ignores critical differences between seventeenth-century England and New England.; First, England was overcrowded and land-hungry; New England was sparsely populated and labor-hungry. Second, England suffered the normal European rate of mortality; New England, especially in the first generation of English colonists, was virtually free from infectious diseases. Third, England had an all-embracing state church; in New England membership in a church was restricted to the elect. Fourth, a high proportion of English villagers lived under paternalistic resident squires; no such class existed in New England. By narrowing his focus to village institutions and ignoring these critical differences, which studies by Greven, Demos, and Lockridge have shown to be so important, Allen has created a somewhat distorted picture of reality.

Now, let's look at the answers.

A: "A high proportion of English villagers lived under paternalistic resident squires". We can at least infer from the word "paternalistic" that there was a strong element of authority held by the squire.
B: England had an "all-embracing state church", which implies that church membership was fairly prevalent and was not restricted (as it was in New England).
C: This is clearly not the case in England -- it is overcrowded and land-hungry, hardly indicative of low population.
D: There is no clear evidence from the passage that indicates this. We don't know whether there is diversity in institutions.
E: There is no clear evidence from the passage that indicates that this would be the case. We don't know whether national events had any impact because it isn't mentioned and there is no information from which we can reasonably infer a conclusion.

I would say, A is the most likely correct answer.