CAT — History & Civilization RC
12 questions, free to view. Click any question to see the answer and explanation.
The Positivists, anxious to stake out their claim for history as a science, contributed the weight of their influence to the cult of facts. First ascertain the facts, said the positivists, then draw your conclusions from them. . . . This is what may [be] called the common-sense view of history. History consists of a corpus of ascertained facts. The facts are available to the historian in documents, inscriptions, and so on . . . [Sir George Clark] contrasted the "hard core of facts" in history with the surrounding pulp of disputable interpretation forgetting perhaps that the pulpy part of the fruit is more rewarding than the hard core. . . . It recalls the favourite dictum of the great liberal journalist C. P. Scott: "Facts are sacred, opinion is free." . . .
What is a historical fact? . . . According to the common-sense view, there are certain basic facts which are the same for all historians and which form, so to speak, the backbone of history—the fact, for example, that the Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066. But this view calls for two observations. In the first place, it is not with facts like these that the historian is primarily concerned. It is no doubt important to know that the great battle was fought in 1066 and not in 1065 or 1067, and that it was fought at Hastings and not at Eastbourne or Brighton. The historian must not get these things wrong. But [to] praise a historian for his accuracy is like praising an architect for using well-seasoned timber or properly mixed concrete in his building. It is a necessary condition of his work, but not his essential function. It is precisely for matters of this kind that the historian is entitled to rely on what have been called the "auxiliary sciences" of history—archaeology, epigraphy, numismatics, chronology, and so forth. . . .
The second observation is that the necessity to establish these basic facts rests not on any quality in the facts themselves, but on an apriori decision of the historian. In spite of C. P. Scott's motto, every journalist knows today that the most effective way to influence opinion is by the selection and arrangement of the appropriate facts. It used to be said that facts speak for themselves. This is, of course, untrue. The facts speak only when the historian calls on them: it is he who decides to which facts to give the floor, and in what order or context. . . . The only reason why we are interested to know that the battle was fought at Hastings in 1066 is that historians regard it as a major historical event. . . . Professor Talcott Parsons once called [science] "a selective system of cognitive orientations to reality." It might perhaps have been put more simply. But history is, among other things, that. The historian is necessarily selective. The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy, but one which it is very hard to eradicate.
According to this passage, which one of the following statements best describes the significance of archaeology for historians?
Archaeology helps historians to locate the oldest civilisations in history.
Archaeology helps historians to ascertain factual accuracy.
Archaeology helps historians to carry out their primary duty.
Archaeology helps historians to interpret historical facts.
Archaeology helps historians to ascertain factual accuracy.
The passage states that the historian is entitled to rely on auxiliary sciences like archaeology, epigraphy and numismatics for establishing basic facts such as dates and locations. This is described as a necessary condition of the historian's work, not his essential function, meaning archaeology helps establish factual accuracy rather than carrying out the historian's primary interpretive duty.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: The passage does not mention locating the oldest civilisations as a function of archaeology in this context, this is a general association with archaeology that the passage does not make.
Why Option B is Correct: The passage explicitly classifies archaeology as an auxiliary science used to establish basic facts, meaning it helps historians confirm accuracy of dates, places and events.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: The passage explicitly distinguishes between establishing facts, for which auxiliary sciences are used, and the historian's primary function, which is interpretation and selection. Archaeology helps with the former, not the latter.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: The passage does not associate archaeology with interpretation, interpretation is what the historian does after the basic facts are established, and it is this interpretive function the author considers the historian's essential role.
Key Takeaway: When a passage distinguishes between a necessary condition and an essential function, the auxiliary tool belongs to the former category and cannot be credited with the latter.
All of the following, if true, can weaken the passage's claim that facts do not speak for themselves, EXCEPT:
the truth value of a fact is independent of the historian who expresses it.
a fact, by its very nature, is objective and universal, irrespective of the context in which it is placed.
facts, like truth, can be relative: what is fact for person X may not be so for person Y.
the order in which a series of facts is presented does not have any bearing on the production of meaning.
facts, like truth, can be relative: what is fact for person X may not be so for person Y.
The passage argues that facts do not speak for themselves because the historian selects, arranges and contextualises them, giving them meaning. Options A, B and D, if true, would all weaken this claim by suggesting facts have objective, independent meaning regardless of how they are presented. Option C, saying facts can be relative and subjective, actually supports the passage's claim that facts are not objective and self-evident, rather than weakening it.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: If the truth value of a fact is independent of the historian expressing it, this would suggest facts have an objective truth that exists outside the historian's framing, weakening the passage's claim that historians give meaning to facts through selection.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: If facts are objective and universal irrespective of context, this would directly contradict the passage's claim that context and arrangement determine what facts mean.
Why Option C is Correct: If facts can be relative and vary between individuals, this reinforces rather than weakens the passage's argument that facts do not carry universal, self-evident meaning, making this the exception.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: If the order in which facts are presented has no bearing on meaning, this would directly contradict the passage's specific point that it is the historian's selection and arrangement of facts that shapes their meaning.
Key Takeaway: In "weaken except" questions, find the option that supports the passage's claim rather than contradicting it, since supporting a claim cannot weaken it.
If the author of the passage were to write a book on the Battle of Hastings along the lines of his/her own reasoning, the focus of the historical account would be on:
exploring the socio-political and economic factors that led to the Battle.
producing a detailed timeline of the various events that led to the Battle.
deriving historical facts from the relevant documents and inscriptions.
providing a nuanced interpretation by relying on the auxiliary sciences.
exploring the socio-political and economic factors that led to the Battle.
The passage argues that the historian's essential function is not factual accuracy but interpretation, selection and arrangement, giving floor to the facts that matter and deciding their context. An account written along these lines would focus on why the battle mattered, exploring the socio-political and economic factors that led to it, rather than cataloguing dates and timelines.
Why Option A is Correct: This matches the author's view that the historian's primary function is to give meaning to facts through interpretation, contextualisation and selection, which in a book about the Battle of Hastings would mean examining the factors that made the battle historically significant.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: Producing a detailed timeline is precisely what the passage associates with the auxiliary sciences and with getting basic facts right, which the author describes as a necessary condition but not the historian's primary role.
Why Option C is
Incorrect: Deriving historical facts from documents and inscriptions is what positivists do, and the author explicitly critiques this as the common-sense view that reduces history to a corpus of ascertained facts rather than meaningful interpretation.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: While the author mentions auxiliary sciences like archaeology, their role is limited to establishing factual accuracy, not providing a nuanced interpretation. The interpretation comes from the historian's own analytical work.
Key Takeaway: When asked how an author would apply their own argument, identify which approach most closely mirrors the method the author explicitly champions rather than the methods they criticise.
All of the following describe the "common-sense view" of history, EXCEPT:
real history can be found in ancient engravings and archival documents.
only the positivist methods can lead to credible historical knowledge.
history is like science: a selective system of cognitive orientations to reality.
history can be objective like the sciences if it is derived from historical facts.
history is like science: a selective system of cognitive orientations to reality.
The common-sense view of history, as described in the passage, is associated with positivism, the belief that facts are objective, found in documents and inscriptions, and form the hard core of history. The passage attributes the description of science as a selective system of cognitive orientations to reality to Professor Talcott Parsons, and uses it to argue that the historian is necessarily selective, which is actually the author's own counter-argument against the common-sense view.
Why Option A is
Incorrect: The passage explicitly states that historical facts are available in documents, inscriptions and so on, directly associating the common-sense view with finding history in such archival sources.
Why Option B is
Incorrect: The passage describes the positivists as contributors to the cult of facts and the common-sense view, so the positivist method is directly associated with this view.
Why Option C is Correct: This describes the author's own counter-position, not the common-sense view. The author uses Parsons' formulation to argue that history, like science, is selective and interpretive, which directly contradicts the common-sense view that history is a corpus of objective facts.
Why Option D is
Incorrect: The common-sense view treats history as something that can be made objective by grounding it in facts, mirroring scientific method, which is why positivists sought to claim history as a science.
Key Takeaway: Be careful not to attribute to the view being critiqued the very counter-argument the author uses to critique it, since these belong to opposite sides of the passage's argument.
[S]pices were a global commodity centuries before European voyages. There was a complex chain of relations, yet consumers had little knowledge of producers and vice versa. Desire for spices helped fuel European colonial empires to create political, military and commercial networks under a single power.
Historians know a fair amount about the supply of spices in Europe during the medieval period - the origins, methods of transportation, the prices - but less about demand. Why go to such extraordinary efforts to procure expensive products from exotic lands? Still, demand was great enough to inspire the voyages of Christopher Columbus and Vasco Da Gama, launching the first fateful wave of European colonialism. . . .
So, why were spices so highly prized in Europe in the centuries from about 1000 to 1500? One widely disseminated explanation for medieval demand for spices was that they covered the taste of spoiled meat. . . . Medieval purchasers consumed meat much fresher than what the average city-dweller in the developed world of today has at hand. However, refrigeration was not available, and some hot spices have been shown to serve as an anti-bacterial agent. Salting, smoking or drying meat were other means of preservation. Most spices used in cooking began as medical ingredients, and throughout the Middle Ages spices were used as both medicines and condiments. Above all, medieval recipes involve the combination of medical and culinary lore in order to balance food's humeral properties and prevent disease. Most spices were hot and dry and so appropriate in sauces to counteract the moist and wet properties supposedly possessed by most meat and fish. . . .
Where spices came from was known in a vague sense centuries before the voyages of Columbus. Just how vague may be judged by looking at medieval world maps . . . To the medieval European imagination, the East was exotic and alluring. Medieval maps often placed India close to the so-called Earthly Paradise, the Garden of Eden described in the Bible.
Geographical knowledge has a lot to do with the perceptions of spices' relative scarcity and the reasons for their high prices. An example of the varying notions of scarcity is the conflicting information about how pepper is harvested. As far back as the 7th century Europeans thought that pepper in India grew on trees "guarded" by serpents that would bite and poison anyone who attempted to gather the fruit. The only way to harvest pepper was to burn the trees, which would drive the snakes underground. Of course, this bit of lore would explain the shriveled black peppercorns, but not white, pink or other colors.
Spices never had the enduring allure or power of gold and silver or the commercial potential of new products such as tobacco, indigo or sugar. But the taste for spices did continue for a while beyond the Middle Ages. As late as the 17th century, the English and the Dutch were struggling for control of the Spice Islands: Dutch New Amsterdam, or New York, was exchanged by the British for one of the Moluccan Islands where nutmeg was grown.
It can be inferred that all of the following contributed to a decline in the allure of spices, EXCEPT:
the development of refrigeration techniques.
increase in the availability of spices.
changes in the system of medical treatment.
changes in European cuisine.
increase in the availability of spices.
The passage discusses how refrigeration eliminated the need for spices as anti-bacterial agents, how spices were primarily used in combination with medical knowledge about humoral properties, and how taste and culinary practices changed. An increase in availability of spices would lower their price but does not directly explain why the allure or medical and culinary need for spices declined.
In the context of the passage, the people who heard the story of pepper trees being guarded by snakes would be least likely to arrive at the conclusion that
this is why pepper is so hot.
pepper is costly for good reason.
it is not advisable to go to India to harvest the pepper themselves.
it is no surprise that the pepper supply is so limited.
this is why pepper is so hot.
The story about pepper trees guarded by snakes and burned to harvest peppercorns explains why pepper is scarce and costly and why going to India to harvest it yourself is dangerous, but it says nothing about why pepper is hot. The hotness of pepper is a physical property entirely unrelated to the legend of snakes and burning trees.
In the context of the passage, which one of the following conclusions CANNOT be reached?
The spice trade was a driver of colonial expansion.
India was colonised for its spices and gold.
Tobacco was more marketable than spices.
Colonialism was motivated by the demand for spices.
India was colonised for its spices and gold.
The passage discusses how the spice trade helped fuel European colonialism and inspired voyages of exploration. However, the passage never specifically states that India was colonised for its spices and gold. The passage mentions spices in relation to India but does not discuss gold in the context of Indian colonisation specifically, nor does it state that India was colonised for these two reasons together.
If a trader brought white peppercorns from India to medieval Europe, all of the following are unlikely to happen, EXCEPT:
medieval maps would be used as navigational aids.
Europeans would doubt the story of pepper harvesting.
the price of spices would decrease.
pepper would no longer be considered exotic.
Europeans would doubt the story of pepper harvesting.
The passage explains that medieval Europeans believed peppercorns were shriveled and black because the trees were burned to drive away snakes, which they thought was the only way to harvest pepper. White peppercorns would contradict this story since burning would not produce white peppercorns, so Europeans encountering white peppercorns would have reason to doubt the burning-snake narrative.
[Fifty] years after its publication in English [in 1972], and just a year since [Marshall] Sahlins himself died—we may ask: why did [his essay] "Original Affluent Society" have such an impact, and how has it fared since? . . . Sahlins's principal argument was simple but counterintuitive: before being driven into marginal environments by colonial powers, hunter-gatherers, or foragers, were not engaged in a desperate struggle for meager survival. Quite the contrary, they satisfied their needs with far less work than people in agricultural and industrial societies, leaving them more time to use as they wished. Hunters, he quipped, keep bankers' hours. Refusing to maximize, many were "more concerned with games of chance than with chances of game." . . . The so-called Neolithic Revolution, rather than improving life, imposed a harsher work regime and set in motion the long history of growing inequality . . .
Moreover, foragers had other options. The contemporary Hadza of Tanzania, who had long been surrounded by farmers, knew they had alternatives and rejected them. To Sahlins, this showed that foragers are not simply examples of human diversity or victimhood but something more profound: they demonstrated that societies make real choices. Culture, a way of living oriented around a distinctive set of values, manifests a fundamental principle of collective self-determination. . . .
But the point [of the essay] is not so much the empirical validity of the data—the real interest for most readers, after all, is not in foragers either today or in the Paleolithic—but rather its conceptual challenge to contemporary economic life and bourgeois individualism. The empirical served a philosophical and political project, a thought experiment and stimulus to the imagination of possibilities.
With its title's nod toward The Affluent Society (1958), economist John Kenneth Galbraith's famously skeptical portrait of America's postwar prosperity and inequality, and dripping with New Left contempt for consumerism, "The Original Affluent Society" brought this critical perspective to bear on the contemporary world. It did so through the classic anthropological move of showing that radical alternatives to the readers' lives really exist. If the capitalist world seeks wealth through ever greater material production to meet infinitely expansive desires, foraging societies follow "the Zen road to affluence": not by getting more, but by wanting less. If it seems that foragers have been left behind by "progress," this is due only to the ethnocentric self-congratulation of the West. Rather than accumulate material goods, these societies are guided by other values: leisure, mobility, and above all, freedom. . . .
Viewed in today's context, of course, not every aspect of the essay has aged well. While acknowledging the violence of colonialism, racism, and dispossession, it does not thematize them as heavily as we might today. Rebuking evolutionary anthropologists for treating present-day foragers as "left behind" by progress, it too can succumb to the temptation to use them as proxies for the Paleolithic. Yet these characteristics should not distract us from appreciating Sahlins's effort to show that if we want to conjure new possibilities, we need to learn about actually inhabitable worlds.
We can infer that Sahlins's main goal in writing his essay was to:
put forth the view that, despite egalitarian origins, economic progress brings greater inequality and social hierarchies.
highlight the fact that while we started off as a fairly contented egalitarian people, we have progressively degenerated into materialism.
hold a mirror to an acquisitive society, with examples of other communities that have chosen successfully to be non-materialistic
counter Galbraith's pessimistic view of the inevitability of a capitalist trajectory for economic growth.
hold a mirror to an acquisitive society, with examples of other communities that have chosen successfully to be non-materialistic
The passage states that the real interest of Sahlins's essay is not empirical data about foragers but its conceptual challenge to contemporary economic life and bourgeois individualism. The essay was meant to show that alternatives to the capitalist world's material accumulation genuinely exist, holding a mirror to acquisitive society by pointing to communities that have chosen non-materialistic ways of living.
The author mentions Tanzania's Hadza community to illustrate:
that hunter-gatherer communities' subsistence-level techniques equipped them to survive well into contemporary times.
how pre-agrarian societies did not hamper the emergence of more advanced agrarian practices in contiguous communities.
that forager communities' lifestyles derived not from ignorance about alternatives, but from their own choice.
how two vastly different ways of living and working were able to coexist in proximity for centuries.
that forager communities' lifestyles derived not from ignorance about alternatives, but from their own choice.
The passage states that the Hadza, surrounded by farmers and knowing the alternatives, rejected farming, and that Sahlins used this to show that foragers demonstrate real collective self-determination, making choices about their way of life rather than simply lacking knowledge of alternatives.
The author of the passage mentions Galbraith's "The Affluent Society" to:
show how Galbraith's theories refute Sahlins's thesis on the contentment of pre-hunter-gatherer communities.
contrast the materialist nature of contemporary growth paths with the pacifist content ways of living among the foragers.
document the influence of Galbraith's cynical views on modern consumerism on Sahlins's analysis of pre-historic societies.
show how Sahlins's views complemented Galbraith's criticism of the consumerism and inequality of contemporary society.
show how Sahlins's views complemented Galbraith's criticism of the consumerism and inequality of contemporary society.
The passage describes Sahlins's essay as dripping with New Left contempt for consumerism and explicitly states that the title nods toward Galbraith's book. The passage says the essay brought Galbraith's critical perspective on consumerism and inequality to bear on the contemporary world, and shows how the two works share a critical stance toward capitalist society, meaning Sahlins's views complemented Galbraith's criticism.
The author of the passage criticises Sahlins's essay for its:
cursory treatment of the effects of racism and colonialism on societies.
outdated values regarding present-day foragers versus ancient foraging communities.
critique of anthropologists who disparage the choices of foragers in today's society
failure to supplement its thesis with robust empirical data.
cursory treatment of the effects of racism and colonialism on societies.
The passage explicitly states that while acknowledging the violence of colonialism, racism and dispossession, Sahlins's essay does not thematise them as heavily as we might today, which is a direct criticism of the essay's cursory treatment of racism and colonialism.
Want this as a timed attempt?
Log in free to attempt this topic with a real timer, analytics, streaks and bookmarks.