CAnthropologists studying the Hopi people of the southwestern United States often characterize Hopi society between 1680 and 1880 as surprisingly stable, considering that it was a period of diminution in population and pressure from contact with outside groups, factors that might be expected to cause significant changes in Hopi social arrangements.

The Hopis’ retention of their distinctive socio-cultural system has been attributed to the Hopi religious elite’s determined efforts to preserve their religion and way of life, and also to a geographical isolation greater than that of many other Native American groups, an isolation that limited both cultural contact and exposure to European diseases. But equally important to Hopi cultural persistence may have been an inherent flexibility in their social system that may have allowed preservation of traditions even as the Hopis accommodated themselves to change. For example, the system of matrilineal clans was maintained throughout this period, even though some clans merged to form larger groups while others divided into smaller descent groups. Furthermore, although traditionally members of particular Hopi clans appear to have exclusively controlled particular ceremonies, a clan’s control of a ceremony might shift to another clan if the first became too small to manage the responsibility. Village leadership positions traditionally restricted to members of one clan might be similarly extended to members of other clans, and women might assume such positions under certain unusual conditions.

The author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about the explanation outlined in highlighted text?

Anthropologists studying the Hopi people of the southwestern United States often characterize Hopi society between 1680 and 1880 as surprisingly stable, considering that it was a period of diminution in population and pressure from contact with outside groups, factors that might be expected to cause significant changes in Hopi social arrangements.

The Hopis’ retention of their distinctive socio-cultural system has been attributed to the Hopi religious elite’s determined efforts to preserve their religion and way of life, and also to a geographical isolation greater than that of many other Native American groups, an isolation that limited both cultural contact and exposure to European diseases. But equally important to Hopi cultural persistence may have been an inherent flexibility in their social system that may have allowed preservation of traditions even as the Hopis accommodated themselves to change. For example, the system of matrilineal clans was maintained throughout this period, even though some clans merged to form larger groups while others divided into smaller descent groups. Furthermore, although traditionally members of particular Hopi clans appear to have exclusively controlled particular ceremonies, a clan’s control of a ceremony might shift to another clan if the first became too small to manage the responsibility. Village leadership positions traditionally restricted to members of one clan might be similarly extended to members of other clans, and women might assume such positions under certain unusual conditions.

Which of the following can be inferred from the passage about the Hopis' geographic situation between 1680 and 1880?

Anthropologists studying the Hopi people of the southwestern United States often characterize Hopi society between 1680 and 1880 as surprisingly stable, considering that it was a period of diminution in population and pressure from contact with outside groups, factors that might be expected to cause significant changes in Hopi social arrangements.

The Hopis’ retention of their distinctive socio-cultural system has been attributed to the Hopi religious elite’s determined efforts to preserve their religion and way of life, and also to a geographical isolation greater than that of many other Native American groups, an isolation that limited both cultural contact and exposure to European diseases. But equally important to Hopi cultural persistence may have been an inherent flexibility in their social system that may have allowed preservation of traditions even as the Hopis accommodated themselves to change. For example, the system of matrilineal clans was maintained throughout this period, even though some clans merged to form larger groups while others divided into smaller descent groups. Furthermore, although traditionally members of particular Hopi clans appear to have exclusively controlled particular ceremonies, a clan’s control of a ceremony might shift to another clan if the first became too small to manage the responsibility. Village leadership positions traditionally restricted to members of one clan might be similarly extended to members of other clans, and women might assume such positions under certain unusual conditions.

The passage is primarily concerned with

Anthropologists studying the Hopi people of the southwestern United States often characterize Hopi society between 1680 and 1880 as surprisingly stable, considering that it was a period of diminution in population and pressure from contact with outside groups, factors that might be expected to cause significant changes in Hopi social arrangements.

The Hopis’ retention of their distinctive socio-cultural system has been attributed to the Hopi religious elite’s determined efforts to preserve their religion and way of life, and also to a geographical isolation greater than that of many other Native American groups, an isolation that limited both cultural contact and exposure to European diseases. But equally important to Hopi cultural persistence may have been an inherent flexibility in their social system that may have allowed preservation of traditions even as the Hopis accommodated themselves to change. For example, the system of matrilineal clans was maintained throughout this period, even though some clans merged to form larger groups while others divided into smaller descent groups. Furthermore, although traditionally members of particular Hopi clans appear to have exclusively controlled particular ceremonies, a clan’s control of a ceremony might shift to another clan if the first became too small to manage the responsibility. Village leadership positions traditionally restricted to members of one clan might be similarly extended to members of other clans, and women might assume such positions under certain unusual conditions.

The author of the passage mentions the control of ceremonies by particular Hopi clans

most likely in order to

Anthropologists studying the Hopi people of the southwestern United States often characterize Hopi society between 1680 and 1880 as surprisingly stable, considering that it was a period of diminution in population and pressure from contact with outside groups, factors that might be expected to cause significant changes in Hopi social arrangements.

The Hopis’ retention of their distinctive socio-cultural system has been attributed to the Hopi religious elite’s determined efforts to preserve their religion and way of life, and also to a geographical isolation greater than that of many other Native American groups, an isolation that limited both cultural contact and exposure to European diseases. But equally important to Hopi cultural persistence may have been an inherent flexibility in their social system that may have allowed preservation of traditions even as the Hopis accommodated themselves to change. For example, the system of matrilineal clans was maintained throughout this period, even though some clans merged to form larger groups while others divided into smaller descent groups. Furthermore, although traditionally members of particular Hopi clans appear to have exclusively controlled particular ceremonies, a clan’s control of a ceremony might shift to another clan if the first became too small to manage the responsibility. Village leadership positions traditionally restricted to members of one clan might be similarly extended to members of other clans, and women might assume such positions under certain unusual conditions.

The passage suggests that sociocultural change in Hopi society between 1680 and 1880 was

Historians sometimes forget that history is continually being made and experienced before it is studied, interpreted, and read. These latter activities have their own history, of course, which may impinge in unexpected ways on public events. It is difficult to predict when “new pasts” will overturn established historical interpretations and change the course of history.

In the fall of 1954, for example, C. Vann Woodward delivered a lecture series at the University of Virginia which challenged the prevailing dogma concerning the history, continuity, and uniformity of racial segregation in the South. He argued that the Jim Crow laws of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries not only codified traditional practice but also were a determined effort to erase the considerable progress made by Black people during and after Reconstruction in the 1870’s. This revisionist view of Jim Crow legislation grew in part from the research that Woodward had done for the NAACP legal campaign during its preparation for Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court had issued its ruling in this epochal desegregation case a few months before Woodward’s lectures.

The lectures were soon published as a book, The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Ten years later, in a preface to the second revised edition, Woodward confessed with ironic modesty that the first edition “had begun to suffer under some of the handicaps that might be expected in a history of the American Revolution published in 1776.” That was a bit like hearing Thomas Paine apologize for the timing of his pamphlet Common Sense, which had a comparable impact. Although Common Sense also had a mass readership, Paine had intended to reach and inspire: he was not a historian, and thus not concerned with accuracy or the dangers of historical anachronism. Yet, like Paine, Woodward had an unerring sense of the revolutionary moment, and of how historical evidence could undermine the mythological tradition that was crushing the dreams of new social possibilities. Martin Luther King, Jr., testified to the profound effect of The Strange Career of Jim Crow on the civil rights movement by praising the book and quoting it frequently.

The “new pasts” mentioned in line 6 can best be described as the

Historians sometimes forget that history is continually being made and experienced before it is studied, interpreted, and read. These latter activities have their own history, of course, which may impinge in unexpected ways on public events. It is difficult to predict when “new pasts” will overturn established historical interpretations and change the course of history.

In the fall of 1954, for example, C. Vann Woodward delivered a lecture series at the University of Virginia which challenged the prevailing dogma concerning the history, continuity, and uniformity of racial segregation in the South. He argued that the Jim Crow laws of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries not only codified traditional practice but also were a determined effort to erase the considerable progress made by Black people during and after Reconstruction in the 1870’s. This revisionist view of Jim Crow legislation grew in part from the research that Woodward had done for the NAACP legal campaign during its preparation for Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court had issued its ruling in this epochal desegregation case a few months before Woodward’s lectures.

The lectures were soon published as a book, The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Ten years later, in a preface to the second revised edition, Woodward confessed with ironic modesty that the first edition “had begun to suffer under some of the handicaps that might be expected in a history of the American Revolution published in 1776.” That was a bit like hearing Thomas Paine apologize for the timing of his pamphlet Common Sense, which had a comparable impact. Although Common Sense also had a mass readership, Paine had intended to reach and inspire: he was not a historian, and thus not concerned with accuracy or the dangers of historical anachronism. Yet, like Paine, Woodward had an unerring sense of the revolutionary moment, and of how historical evidence could undermine the mythological tradition that was crushing the dreams of new social possibilities. Martin Luther King, Jr., testified to the profound effect of The Strange Career of Jim Crow on the civil rights movement by praising the book and quoting it frequently.

It can be inferred from the passage that the “prevailing dogma” (line 10) held that

Historians sometimes forget that history is continually being made and experienced before it is studied, interpreted, and read. These latter activities have their own history, of course, which may impinge in unexpected ways on public events. It is difficult to predict when “new pasts” will overturn established historical interpretations and change the course of history.

In the fall of 1954, for example, C. Vann Woodward delivered a lecture series at the University of Virginia which challenged the prevailing dogma concerning the history, continuity, and uniformity of racial segregation in the South. He argued that the Jim Crow laws of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries not only codified traditional practice but also were a determined effort to erase the considerable progress made by Black people during and after Reconstruction in the 1870’s. This revisionist view of Jim Crow legislation grew in part from the research that Woodward had done for the NAACP legal campaign during its preparation for Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court had issued its ruling in this epochal desegregation case a few months before Woodward’s lectures.

The lectures were soon published as a book, The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Ten years later, in a preface to the second revised edition, Woodward confessed with ironic modesty that the first edition “had begun to suffer under some of the handicaps that might be expected in a history of the American Revolution published in 1776.” That was a bit like hearing Thomas Paine apologize for the timing of his pamphlet Common Sense, which had a comparable impact. Although Common Sense also had a mass readership, Paine had intended to reach and inspire: he was not a historian, and thus not concerned with accuracy or the dangers of historical anachronism. Yet, like Paine, Woodward had an unerring sense of the revolutionary moment, and of how historical evidence could undermine the mythological tradition that was crushing the dreams of new social possibilities. Martin Luther King, Jr., testified to the profound effect of The Strange Career of Jim Crow on the civil rights movement by praising the book and quoting it frequently.

Which of the following is the best example of writing that is likely to be subject to the kinds of “handicaps” referred to in line 27?

Historians sometimes forget that history is continually being made and experienced before it is studied, interpreted, and read. These latter activities have their own history, of course, which may impinge in unexpected ways on public events. It is difficult to predict when “new pasts” will overturn established historical interpretations and change the course of history.

In the fall of 1954, for example, C. Vann Woodward delivered a lecture series at the University of Virginia which challenged the prevailing dogma concerning the history, continuity, and uniformity of racial segregation in the South. He argued that the Jim Crow laws of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries not only codified traditional practice but also were a determined effort to erase the considerable progress made by Black people during and after Reconstruction in the 1870’s. This revisionist view of Jim Crow legislation grew in part from the research that Woodward had done for the NAACP legal campaign during its preparation for Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court had issued its ruling in this epochal desegregation case a few months before Woodward’s lectures.

The lectures were soon published as a book, The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Ten years later, in a preface to the second revised edition, Woodward confessed with ironic modesty that the first edition “had begun to suffer under some of the handicaps that might be expected in a history of the American Revolution published in 1776.” That was a bit like hearing Thomas Paine apologize for the timing of his pamphlet Common Sense, which had a comparable impact. Although Common Sense also had a mass readership, Paine had intended to reach and inspire: he was not a historian, and thus not concerned with accuracy or the dangers of historical anachronism. Yet, like Paine, Woodward had an unerring sense of the revolutionary moment, and of how historical evidence could undermine the mythological tradition that was crushing the dreams of new social possibilities. Martin Luther King, Jr., testified to the profound effect of The Strange Career of Jim Crow on the civil rights movement by praising the book and quoting it frequently.

The passage suggests that C. Vann Woodward and Thomas Paine were similar in all of the following ways EXCEPT:

Historians sometimes forget that history is continually being made and experienced before it is studied, interpreted, and read. These latter activities have their own history, of course, which may impinge in unexpected ways on public events. It is difficult to predict when “new pasts” will overturn established historical interpretations and change the course of history.

In the fall of 1954, for example, C. Vann Woodward delivered a lecture series at the University of Virginia which challenged the prevailing dogma concerning the history, continuity, and uniformity of racial segregation in the South. He argued that the Jim Crow laws of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries not only codified traditional practice but also were a determined effort to erase the considerable progress made by Black people during and after Reconstruction in the 1870’s. This revisionist view of Jim Crow legislation grew in part from the research that Woodward had done for the NAACP legal campaign during its preparation for Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court had issued its ruling in this epochal desegregation case a few months before Woodward’s lectures.

The lectures were soon published as a book, The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Ten years later, in a preface to the second revised edition, Woodward confessed with ironic modesty that the first edition “had begun to suffer under some of the handicaps that might be expected in a history of the American Revolution published in 1776.” That was a bit like hearing Thomas Paine apologize for the timing of his pamphlet Common Sense, which had a comparable impact. Although Common Sense also had a mass readership, Paine had intended to reach and inspire: he was not a historian, and thus not concerned with accuracy or the dangers of historical anachronism. Yet, like Paine, Woodward had an unerring sense of the revolutionary moment, and of how historical evidence could undermine the mythological tradition that was crushing the dreams of new social possibilities. Martin Luther King, Jr., testified to the profound effect of The Strange Career of Jim Crow on the civil rights movement by praising the book and quoting it frequently.

The attitude of the author of the passage toward the work of C. Vann Woodward is best described as one of

Historians sometimes forget that history is continually being made and experienced before it is studied, interpreted, and read. These latter activities have their own history, of course, which may impinge in unexpected ways on public events. It is difficult to predict when “new pasts” will overturn established historical interpretations and change the course of history.

In the fall of 1954, for example, C. Vann Woodward delivered a lecture series at the University of Virginia which challenged the prevailing dogma concerning the history, continuity, and uniformity of racial segregation in the South. He argued that the Jim Crow laws of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries not only codified traditional practice but also were a determined effort to erase the considerable progress made by Black people during and after Reconstruction in the 1870’s. This revisionist view of Jim Crow legislation grew in part from the research that Woodward had done for the NAACP legal campaign during its preparation for Brown v. Board of Education. The Supreme Court had issued its ruling in this epochal desegregation case a few months before Woodward’s lectures.

The lectures were soon published as a book, The Strange Career of Jim Crow. Ten years later, in a preface to the second revised edition, Woodward confessed with ironic modesty that the first edition “had begun to suffer under some of the handicaps that might be expected in a history of the American Revolution published in 1776.” That was a bit like hearing Thomas Paine apologize for the timing of his pamphlet Common Sense, which had a comparable impact. Although Common Sense also had a mass readership, Paine had intended to reach and inspire: he was not a historian, and thus not concerned with accuracy or the dangers of historical anachronism. Yet, like Paine, Woodward had an unerring sense of the revolutionary moment, and of how historical evidence could undermine the mythological tradition that was crushing the dreams of new social possibilities. Martin Luther King, Jr., testified to the profound effect of The Strange Career of Jim Crow on the civil rights movement by praising the book and quoting it frequently.

Which of the following best describes the new idea expressed by C. Vann Woodward in his University of Virginia lectures in 1954?

In the year 1898, the United States made its earliest plunge into imperialism. For the first time, the nation secured overseas lands, dominions too thickly populated to be adapted for the purposes of colonization. By earlier conquests and purchases such as those of Louisiana, Florida, Texas, California, and New Mexico, the United States had secured relatively empty territories, which a flow of emigrants from the Eastern States of the US could rapidly Americanize. But in Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Hawaii, there was never a serious attempt to colonize on the part of the American citizens. The reasons behind these conquests were similar to the ones that led to the European partition of Africa in the 19th century. The year 1898 indeed represented a strong shift in the foreign policy.

Even though in the years after the Civil War (1861-1865), Denmark offered to sell St. Thomas and St. Johns cheaply, the United States refused to purchase them, and declined to annex San Domingo or to entertain Sweden's proposal to purchase its West Indian territory. In 1893, instead of annexing Hawaii, the US attempted to bolster up the sovereignty of the native Queen. Then suddenly Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam were annexed; Hawaii was incorporated and Samoa was divided with Germany. America finally abandoned isolationism for good. In part, this change in foreign policy was due to military considerations. The possession of Hawaii, Panama and Guantanamo in Cuba was obviously necessary for the defense of America’s coasts. Just as the Monroe Doctrine was intended to protect the country from the approach of great military powers, so these new acquisitions were desired to pre-empt close-lying bases, from which fleets in enemy possession could assail the country’s trade or cut off its communication. Such strategic considerations, however, do not explain the whole of the new imperialistic policy. Economic motives played a greater part. As a result of the Industrial Revolution, merchants had begun to think in terms of foreign markets and the US financiers in terms of foreign investments. The growing population had made increasing demands upon food products, leaving less to be exported, and at the same time exports of manufactures had increased. Many citizens believed that the United States could not afford to adhere to a policy of isolation while other nations were reaching out for the command of new markets.

Which of the following statements best explains America’s sudden shift from isolationism to imperialism?

In the year 1898, the United States made its earliest plunge into imperialism. For the first time, the nation secured overseas lands, dominions too thickly populated to be adapted for the purposes of colonization. By earlier conquests and purchases such as those of Louisiana, Florida, Texas, California, and New Mexico, the United States had secured relatively empty territories, which a flow of emigrants from the Eastern States of the US could rapidly Americanize. But in Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Hawaii, there was never a serious attempt to colonize on the part of the American citizens. The reasons behind these conquests were similar to the ones that led to the European partition of Africa in the 19th century. The year 1898 indeed represented a strong shift in the foreign policy.

Even though in the years after the Civil War (1861-1865), Denmark offered to sell St. Thomas and St. Johns cheaply, the United States refused to purchase them, and declined to annex San Domingo or to entertain Sweden's proposal to purchase its West Indian territory. In 1893, instead of annexing Hawaii, the US attempted to bolster up the sovereignty of the native Queen. Then suddenly Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam were annexed; Hawaii was incorporated and Samoa was divided with Germany. America finally abandoned isolationism for good. In part, this change in foreign policy was due to military considerations. The possession of Hawaii, Panama and Guantanamo in Cuba was obviously necessary for the defense of America’s coasts. Just as the Monroe Doctrine was intended to protect the country from the approach of great military powers, so these new acquisitions were desired to pre-empt close-lying bases, from which fleets in enemy possession could assail the country’s trade or cut off its communication. Such strategic considerations, however, do not explain the whole of the new imperialistic policy. Economic motives played a greater part. As a result of the Industrial Revolution, merchants had begun to think in terms of foreign markets and the US financiers in terms of foreign investments. The growing population had made increasing demands upon food products, leaving less to be exported, and at the same time exports of manufactures had increased. Many citizens believed that the United States could not afford to adhere to a policy of isolation while other nations were reaching out for the command of new markets.

Which of the following best describes the purpose of the third paragraph of the passage?

In the year 1898, the United States made its earliest plunge into imperialism. For the first time, the nation secured overseas lands, dominions too thickly populated to be adapted for the purposes of colonization. By earlier conquests and purchases such as those of Louisiana, Florida, Texas, California, and New Mexico, the United States had secured relatively empty territories, which a flow of emigrants from the Eastern States of the US could rapidly Americanize. But in Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Hawaii, there was never a serious attempt to colonize on the part of the American citizens. The reasons behind these conquests were similar to the ones that led to the European partition of Africa in the 19th century. The year 1898 indeed represented a strong shift in the foreign policy.

Even though in the years after the Civil War (1861-1865), Denmark offered to sell St. Thomas and St. Johns cheaply, the United States refused to purchase them, and declined to annex San Domingo or to entertain Sweden's proposal to purchase its West Indian territory. In 1893, instead of annexing Hawaii, the US attempted to bolster up the sovereignty of the native Queen. Then suddenly Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam were annexed; Hawaii was incorporated and Samoa was divided with Germany. America finally abandoned isolationism for good. In part, this change in foreign policy was due to military considerations. The possession of Hawaii, Panama and Guantanamo in Cuba was obviously necessary for the defense of America’s coasts. Just as the Monroe Doctrine was intended to protect the country from the approach of great military powers, so these new acquisitions were desired to pre-empt close-lying bases, from which fleets in enemy possession could assail the country’s trade or cut off its communication. Such strategic considerations, however, do not explain the whole of the new imperialistic policy. Economic motives played a greater part. As a result of the Industrial Revolution, merchants had begun to think in terms of foreign markets and the US financiers in terms of foreign investments. The growing population had made increasing demands upon food products, leaving less to be exported, and at the same time exports of manufactures had increased. Many citizens believed that the United States could not afford to adhere to a policy of isolation while other nations were reaching out for the command of new markets.

Which of the following inferences is best supported by the passage?

In the year 1898, the United States made its earliest plunge into imperialism. For the first time, the nation secured overseas lands, dominions too thickly populated to be adapted for the purposes of colonization. By earlier conquests and purchases such as those of Louisiana, Florida, Texas, California, and New Mexico, the United States had secured relatively empty territories, which a flow of emigrants from the Eastern States of the US could rapidly Americanize. But in Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Hawaii, there was never a serious attempt to colonize on the part of the American citizens. The reasons behind these conquests were similar to the ones that led to the European partition of Africa in the 19th century. The year 1898 indeed represented a strong shift in the foreign policy.

Even though in the years after the Civil War (1861-1865), Denmark offered to sell St. Thomas and St. Johns cheaply, the United States refused to purchase them, and declined to annex San Domingo or to entertain Sweden's proposal to purchase its West Indian territory. In 1893, instead of annexing Hawaii, the US attempted to bolster up the sovereignty of the native Queen. Then suddenly Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam were annexed; Hawaii was incorporated and Samoa was divided with Germany. America finally abandoned isolationism for good. In part, this change in foreign policy was due to military considerations. The possession of Hawaii, Panama and Guantanamo in Cuba was obviously necessary for the defense of America’s coasts. Just as the Monroe Doctrine was intended to protect the country from the approach of great military powers, so these new acquisitions were desired to pre-empt close-lying bases, from which fleets in enemy possession could assail the country’s trade or cut off its communication. Such strategic considerations, however, do not explain the whole of the new imperialistic policy. Economic motives played a greater part. As a result of the Industrial Revolution, merchants had begun to think in terms of foreign markets and the US financiers in terms of foreign investments. The growing population had made increasing demands upon food products, leaving less to be exported, and at the same time exports of manufactures had increased. Many citizens believed that the United States could not afford to adhere to a policy of isolation while other nations were reaching out for the command of new markets.

Which of the following is the author's overall goal in composing this passage?