Historiography

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong6% picked this

   The history of settlement along the Pacific Coast of the U.S., as understood by most historiographers, is confirmed by evidence reconstructed from

   Too Strong: most / confirmed Wrong Emphasis: doesn't address New The main clause here is, The history of settlement along the Pacific Coast of the U.S. is confirmed by evidence reconstructed from the actions of Asian settlers. The passage never talked about confirming an old view of history. The passage also never gave us a generalization about how most historiographers understood the history of that coast. We should also be bothered by the fact that the New thing in historiography isn't being mentioned at all in this answer.

   6%
2. B

   Too Narrow4% picked this

   Asian settlers on the Pacific Coast of the U.S. left a record of their experiences that traditional historiographers

   Too Narrow: Asian settlers Too Strong: irrelevant We don't have any textual support for the strongly worded idea that traditional historiographers thought that the records left by Asian settlers were irrelevant. This answer also doesn't capture the New thing in historiography, the Theme that is being spotlighted by talking about the Pacific Coast. There's nothing in here about this new focus on the response of explorers and settlers, about the newfound willingness to consider the actions of settlers to be a primary source.

   4%
3. C

   Correct80% picked this

   To understand Asian settlers’ impact on the history of the Pacific Coast of the U.S., historiographers have had to recognize the value

   Why this is right

   This is capturing the New thing happening in historiography. Traditionally, they would just consider documents and records. But now there's a willingness to consider the actions and responses of settlers. By applying this new mindset to the history of the Pacific Coast of the U.S., historiographers are better able to capture the impact of Asian settlers on transforming that landscape. The phrasing of, "to understand the impact, historiographers have had to recognize the value of nontraditional evidence" matches up well with our two author tone moments: "a full study of a culture's historical relationship to its land cannot confine itself to a narrow record of experience" "X cannot be fully understood by historiographers without attention to the input of Chinese settlers as reconstructed from their interactions with that landscape".

   Skill tested: Main Point · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

   80%
4. D

   Out of Scope7% picked this

   Spurred by new findings regarding Asian settlement on the Pacific Coast of the U.S., historiographers have begun to debate

   Out of Scope: debating foundations Reversed Causal Relationship The New thing going down in historiography is an expansion of how they define "a source". There was nothing in the passage about historiographers debating the foundations of historiography. But even if we accept that "recognizing they need to expand their definition of what a source is" means that they're "debating the methodological foundations" of their field, we can't support the causal claim this answer makes. This answer says that "there were new findings regarding Asian settlements on the Pacific U.S. Coast" and those new findings caused the historiographers to expand their definition of what a source is. But the causal relationship in the passage is the reverse. Spurred by an expanded definition of what a source is, historiographers were able to uncover new findings about Asian settlers on the Pacific U.S. Coast.

   7%
5. E

   Wrong Emphasis3% picked this

   By examining only written information, historiography as it is traditionally practiced has produced

   Wrong Emphasis: missing Pacific Coast Out of Scope: inaccurate accounts Too Strong: only Every paragraph of the passage talks about the Pacific Coast of the U.S. But the main point answer doesn't reference it at all? That's fishy. We also don't have support for the strongly worded claim that historiography in the past has examined only written information. And the author nowhere says that historiography has produced inaccurate historical accounts (although the author would probably say that their account of the Pacific Coast had so far been "incomplete").

   3%