veritas 700+

sandy217 wrote:Historian: The vast majority of scholars studying the Americal civil war regard Confederate general as superior to their Union counterparts.They also acknowledge that the Confederate soldier was, on average, more committed to the cause and therefore willing to fight harder than union soldier.However most of these same scholars agree with my contention that when Civil war began in 1861,it was already true that the confederacy could nto prevail without the intervention of a major foerign power such as Great britain or France.


A.Both the COnfederate and Union troops started the war using single-shot muzzle-loading guns to which bayonets could be attached.

B.The confederacy had a greater proportion of officers who had attended the United States Military Academy at West Point and had served with distinction in the mexican
war

C.The union had four time the total population of the Confederacy and most of the industrial manufacturing in the North America

D.The Confederacy won several important victories early in the war and earned the respect of foriegn leaders

E.By the end of the war in 1865, many union soldiers were armed with new Spencer repeating rifles seven shots before reloading; The confederate army continued to rely on the slower, single-shot weapons for its soldiers

OA Later.

Brother, where is the Question stem???? What are we supposed to do...weaken, strengthen etc...???

Edited....Sorry my mistake

IMO E

Argument goes like this:

1) Confederates had better general then Union.

2) Confederate soldiers were more committed then Union soldiers.

Still, author believes that "confederacy could not prevail without the intervention of a major foerign power such as Great britain or France."

Means their must be something good which Unions had and Confederate doesn't had which argument didn't mentioned...so we need to figure out that "something" to strengthen the argument. Op E correctly state that. Op C is also a tricky one, population is a positive factor in war but Op E is the best as it is directly related to the war equipment.

Nice try...Close OA C

My question is how can more population of Union...helps to strengthen Confederate could not prevail without intervention of major foreign power.??

Population of the union establishes what kind of link to historian's opinioni if any?

I could not understand this part!
My answer was also E

Hey guys,

Good discussion, and this may be a case in which the discussion is more valuable than the question itself.

The problem with E here is that it misses the scope of the conclusion that "BY 1861 it was clear... that the Confederacy couldn't win". E talks about developments that happened in 1865 - after the author is saying that it was already clear. The use of new rifles four years later doesn't strengthen his conclusion about 1861 - it's just not relevant because of the timing.

The reasoning behind C is that, even though the Confederates had advantages in commitment and leadership, the Union had a major advantage in size. More potential soldiers and more manufacturing capacity reflect potential advantages that the Union had.

Now...C is something that anyone who stayed awake in an American high school history class should know to be an advantage (sadly, I taught history in an American high school classroom and staying awake wasn't a guarantee!). If you aren't familiar with the American Civil War it may not be as readily apparent. But I don't think it's a flawed question and here's why: The stimulus doesn't give any possible advantages to the Union at all - the stimulus only lists facts that would seem to benefit the Confederacy. So to strengthen the author's contention we need to give some possible reason that the Union might have an edge. C is the only one that comes close.

A - at best it's a tie since they're using the same guns
B - favors the Confederacy
C - correct
D - favors the Confederacy
E - a good trap answer...it misses the scope of the conclusion by 4 years

C is a good example of a "soft" correct answer that really only looks great after process of elimination. E is the real value-add of this question for practice. It looks like a terrific answer, but it clearly misses the constraints of the conclusion so it must be wrong. After that, C is the only plausible choice - it's not a choice that blows you away with certainty, but it's the only one that could be right.

sandy217 wrote:Historian: The vast majority of scholars studying the Americal civil war regard Confederate general as superior to their Union counterparts.They also acknowledge that the Confederate soldier was, on average, more committed to the cause and therefore willing to fight harder than union soldier.However most of these same scholars agree with my contention that when Civil war began in 1861,it was already true that the confederacy could nto prevail without the intervention of a major foerign power such as Great britain or France.

Which of the following strengthens the Historian opinion?

A.Both the COnfederate and Union troops started the war using single-shot muzzle-loading guns to which bayonets could be attached.

B.The confederacy had a greater proportion of officers who had attended the United States Military Academy at West Point and had served with distinction in the mexican
war

C.The union had four time the total population of the Confederacy and most of the industrial manufacturing in the North America

D.The Confederacy won several important victories early in the war and earned the respect of foriegn leaders

E.By the end of the war in 1865, many union soldiers were armed with new Spencer repeating rifles seven shots before reloading; The confederate army continued to rely on the slower, single-shot weapons for its soldiers

OA Later.

Between C & D

D