GMAT PREP RC–The Black Death, a severe epidemic...

[supratim7]

The Black Death, a severe epidemic that ravaged fourteenthcentury
Europe, has intrigued scholars ever since Francis
Gasquet's 1893 study contending that this epidemic greatly
intensified the political and religious upheaval that ended the
Middle Ages. Thirty-six years later, historian George Coulton
agreed but, paradoxically, attributed a silver lining to the Black
Death: prosperity engendered by diminished competition for
food, shelter, and work led survivors of the epidemic into the
Renaissance and subsequent rise of modern Europe.

In the 1930s, however, Evgeny Kosminsky and other Marxist
historians claimed the epidemic was merely an ancillary factor
contributing to a general agrarian crisis stemming primarily
from the inevitable decay of European feudalism. In arguing
that this decline of feudalism was economically determined, the
Marxist asserted that the Black Death was a relatively
insignificant factor. This became the prevailing view until after
the Second World War, when studies of specific regions and
towns revealed astonishing mortality rates ascribed to the
epidemic, thus restoring the central role of the Black Death in
history.

This central role of the Black Death (traditionally attributed to
bubonic plague brought from Asia) has been recently
challenged from another direction. Building on bacteriologist
John Shrewsbury's speculations about mislabeled epidemics,
zoologist Graham Twigg employs urban case studies suggesting
that the rat population in Europe was both too sparse and
insufficiently migratory to have spread plague. Moreover,
Twigg disputes the traditional trade-ship explanation for plague
transmissions by extrapolating from data on the number of
dead rats aboard Nile sailing vessels in 1912. The Black Death,
which he conjectures was anthrax instead of bubonic plague,
therefore caused far less havoc and fewer deaths than
historians typically claim.

Although correctly citing the exacting conditions needed to start
or spread bubonic plague, Twigg ignores virtually a century of
scholarship contradictory to his findings and employs faulty
logic in his single-minded approach to the Black Death. His
speculative generalizations about the numbers of rats in
medieval Europe are based on isolated studies unrepresentative
of medieval conditions, while his unconvincing trade-ship
argument overlooks land-based caravans, the overland
migration of infected rodents, and the many other animals that
carry plague.

The passage suggests that Twigg believes that rats could not
have spread the Black Death unless which of the following were true?
(A) The rats escaped from ships that had been in Asia.
(B) The rats were immune to the diseases that they carried.
(C) The rat population was larger in medieval Europe than
Twigg believes it actually was.
(D) The rat population primarily infested densely populated
areas.
(E) The rats interacted with other animals that Twigg believes
could have carried plague.

OA: (C)

Here's how I went about this one...

From 3rd Para: Twigg » a) Rat nos too less/too scattered b) Rats not migratory c) Dead rat nos in Nile ship doesn't support "Rats led to BD" » So, rats couldn't have spread BD

So, rats could have spread BD if a) Rat nos were NOT less/NOT scattered; b) Rats WERE migratory c) Dead rat nos in Nile ship is misleading.

(A) Shows dead rat nos in Nile ship is misleading. So why incorrect??
(B) Opposite effect. Incorrect
(C) Rat nos were NOT less/scattered. Correct
(D) Rat nos were NOT less/NOT scattered?? Rats WERE migratory?? Dead rat nos in Nile ship is misleading?? Doesn't say anything relevant. Incorrect.
(E) Twigg doesn't believe rats could have spread BD. Incorrect

Though I selected the correct one,
Why is (A) incorrect?
Have I ruled out (B), (D), (E) on sound logic?

Many thanks | Supratim

[RonPurewal]

so, when you do these detail questions, you should keep one main principle in mind above all else: stick with what they actually tell you!
the "inferences" made in these problems are VERY far from inspired insights, and VERY close to the original statements. for instance, if a passage were to say Jim is taller than Corey, then one possible "inference", in the GMAT sense of that term, would be Corey is shorter than Jim.
yes, seriously.

with that in mind -- think inside the box -- here's what the passage actually says about twigg's theory of why rats couldn't have spread the plague:
Twigg employs urban case studies suggesting that the rat population in Europe was both too sparse and insufficiently migratory to have spread plague.
there it is, ladies and gentlemen:
1/ there weren't enough rats to spread the plague.
AND
2/ the rats didn't migrate enough to spread the plague.

so, you are looking only for the opposite of one of these two statements: either "more rats" or "more migratory". these are the only possible answers; anything else is, in essence, a random guess.

none of the choices says "more migratory".
choice (c) says "more rats", so, we have a winner.

--

the reason why (a) is wrong is that it's basically made up at random.
note that the language in the question is pretty strong: COULD NOT have spread the plague UNLESS...
in other words, you need something that, according to twigg, would be absolutely required for the rats to have spread the plague.
per the above discussion, there are only two such absolute requirements: (1) more rats, (2) the rats were more migratory.

if you have choice (a), then that may be one way in which the rats could have been more migratory, but it's certainly not the only way -- definitely not a requirement.
(c) is a requirement.

[supratim7]

Appreciate it Ron..

note that the language in the question is pretty strong: COULD NOT have spread the plague UNLESS...
in other words, you need something that, according to twigg, would be absolutely required for the rats to have spread the plague.

Great insight.. I didn't pay attention to the "language" here..

Looking back, the language is bit like "must be true" questions. i.e.
(A) The rats escaped from ships that had been in Asia. » COULD BE TRUE for the rats to have spread BD; rats could well have spread BD without this (e.g. some other mode of migration)
(C) The rat population was larger in medieval Europe than
Twigg believes it actually was. » MUST BE TRUE for the rats to have spread BD; rats couldn't have spread BD without this.

Interesting twists.. learned new stuff :)

Many thanks | Supratim

[jlucero]

Glad it helped!

[Harish Kumar]

But then since Twigg is also extrapolating on the basis of dead rats on Nile ships, then if the rats were immune to the disease and did not die (but still spread the disease), then thats another way it could have happened.

So why not B?

[RonPurewal]

But then since Twigg is also extrapolating on the basis of dead rats on Nile ships, then if the rats were immune to the disease and did not die (but still spread the disease), then thats another way it could have happened.

So why not B?

"That's another way it could have happened" isn't good enough for the question.

The question says
could not have spread ... unless ...
In other words, the question is demanding some condition that was absolutely necessary for the rats to spread the disease. Not just "something that might have worked if it were a thing".

[subhojyoti.it]

Which of the following statements is most compatible with Kosminsky's approach to history, as it is
presented in the passage?
(A) The Middle Ages were ended primarily by the religious and political upheaval in fourteenthcentury
Europe.
(B) The economic consequences of the Black Death included increased competition for food, shelter,
and work.
(C) European history cannot be studied in isolation from that of the rest of the world.
(D) The number of deaths in fourteenth-century Europe has been greatly exaggerated by other
historians.
(E) The significance of the Black Death is best explained within the context of evolving economic
systems.

A, B and D clearly incorrect choices.
Now from the context of the 2nd para , all i could understand is that Black Death according to marxists was not a significant factor. option E seems correct because it says other evolving economic factors are associated but OA is C.
Please help me in getting this right.

[subhojyoti.it]

Kindly also explain why and how is C the correct option? the choice is worded in such a way that i can't seem to get to the core.

p.s Ron i just can't put into words how much i am grateful to you for your tips.

[RonPurewal]

from the passage:
Graham Twigg employs ... studies suggesting
that the rat population in Europe was ... too sparse ... to have spread plague.

^^ this means "he doesn't think that rats spread the plague, since, he says, there just weren't enough of them."

this translates directly into choice C: the rats couldn't have spread the plague effectively unless there were more of them (than what graham thinks, anyway).

[RonPurewal]

there are two different problems here. please quote the actual problem about which you are asking.

also, please try to describe your current thought process regarding that problem/choice.
what do you understand already?
what don't you understand?
why did you think the choice might be correct?
etc.
if i just tell you why a choice is wrong, that's unlikely to have much benefit for you.

thanks.

[750plus]

there are two different problems here. please quote the actual problem about which you are asking.

also, please try to describe your current thought process regarding that problem/choice.
what do you understand already?
what don't you understand?
why did you think the choice might be correct?
etc.
if i just tell you why a choice is wrong, that's unlikely to have much benefit for you.

thanks.

Sorry, I should have written the question in the first place. Here you go -

Which of the following statements is most compatible with Kosminsky's approach to history, as it is presented in the passage?

(A) The Middle Ages were ended primarily by the religious and political upheaval in fourteenth-century Europe.
(B) The economic consequences of the Black Death included increased competition for food, shelter, and work.
(C) European history cannot be studied in isolation from that of the rest of the world.
(D) The number of deaths in fourteenth-century Europe has been greatly exaggerated by other historians.
(E) The significance of the Black Death is best explained within the context of evolving economic systems

This is the context from the Passage -

In the 1930s, however, Evgeny Kosminsky and other Marxist historians claimed the epidemic was merely an ancillary factor contributing to a general agrarian crisis stemming primarily from the inevitable decay of European feudalism. In arguing that this decline of feudalism was economically determined, the Marxist asserted that the Black Death was a relatively insignificant factor. This became the prevailing view until after the Second World War, when studies of specific regions and towns revealed astonishing mortality rates ascribed to the epidemic, thus restoring the central role of the Black Death in history.

I have a doubt in options C and E. You have already explained choice C to one of the posters. I am posting it here for your perusal -

[redacted]
[ron: i read some words incorrectly before. see below]

I am confused because the OA to this question is E.

[750plus]

I have one more question -

Please explain options B and D below -

The passage is primarily concerned with

(A) demonstrating the relationship between bubonic plague and the Black Death
(B) interpreting historical and scientific works on the origins of the Black Death
(C) employing the Black Death as a case study of disease transmission in medieval Europe
(D) presenting aspects of past and current debate on the historical importance of the Black Death
(E) analyzing the differences between capitalist and Marxist interpretations of the historical significance of the Black Death

I cannot eliminate B whole heartedly because para 3 talks about the origin of Black Death. So, it did talked about interpreting scientific works on origins of Black Death,

[VikrantS137]

Dear Ron, could you please share thoughts on how 'C' is correct? The passage does not mention comparison between European history and the rest of the world.

[RonPurewal]

ok, i read some words incorrectly the first time. i've redacted those parts to prevent confusion.

...so we have one poster saying the answer is C, and one saying it's E.

it should be E. the support is here:
In the 1930s, however, Evgeny Kosminsky and other Marxist historians claimed the epidemic was merely an ancillary factor contributing to a general agrarian crisis stemming primarily from the inevitable decay of European feudalism. In arguing that this decline of feudalism was economically determined, ...

^^ there you go.

'merely' = this is all it was; it wasn't anything else. so, kosminsky is saying that this is the entire significance of the plague. (he is also saying that the significance is minimal.)

so—he is saying that we can understand the (small) significance of the plague entirely in terms of its (small) effect on this economic stuff.

[RonPurewal]

and, right. there's no support for choice C.

that choice would be correct if kosminsky had brought in some facts about a part of the world other than europe and made the case that these facts were essential to understanding the stuff about europe.
but he does no such thing. everything he mentions is within europe.