#24 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

The correct answer choice is (E).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B):

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice.


This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[biskam]

I'm confused as to how lines 27 -36 and 48-56 constitute as "highly skeptical" instead of choice B's "mildly questioning" tone. These lines didn't sound very extreme to me if that makes sense. I was looking for more extreme language which is why I chose B instead.

[Adam Tyson]

Good question, biskam. The difference between "mildly questioning" and "highly skeptical" is the difference between "perhaps another explanation might also explain this" and "I seriously doubt that rationale". This passage doesn't appear to me to have any semblance in it of "maybe it was something else".

The author tells us that the BIA advanced two reasons for their policy - preventing non-Native Americans from gobbling up all the land, and protecting the Native Americans from their own lack of experience with and understanding of land ownership. He then very quickly dispatches with both of those arguments, telling us that the Dawes Act restrictions were not needed to be written the way they were to accomplish either of those goals, and that "neither offers a reason for prohibiting Native Americans from transferring land among themselves." That's not "it might be something else" underlying their position - it's "their MUST be something else", because those arguments are basically nonsense. That's far more than mild questioning - it's all out skepticism!

The author spends the rest of the passage laying out the case that the real reason for the Dawes Act policies was to help the BIA bureaucrats build up their staffs and budget, to give them the opportunity for political patronage. He tells us about that one hypothesis, but it's clear that he is invested in that hypothesis as being much more likely than the arguments put forth previously. This is some major finger-pointing, not just mild questioning.

Tell me if you see it another way, as being more uncertain than the way I read it. I'll listen, but I'll ask you to show me what text supports the claim that he is only mildly questioning the reasons advanced at the time the Dawes Act was passed. I'll want to see a lot of "it might be" and "maybe" and "it's not certain, but perhaps one explanation could be that" language.

You're right that there is no exclamation of "lies, and the lying liars who tell them!" moment in this passage, or anything quite so extreme as that, but it still reads as much more than doubt and much more like outright skepticism, in my not-so-humble opinion, biskam. What do you think?

[biskam]

Hi Adam,

Thanks as always for your thoughtful, careful responses. I guess I was incorrectly looking for ONLY inflammatory language meaning dictions, instead of also looking at the structure of the author's argument. Also, if it were "mildly questioning" I should've seen the author give more wiggle room, but there's definitely no wiggle room here.