PrepTest 44, Section 4, Question 14
In the field of historiography—the writing of history based on a critical examination of authentic primary information sources—one area that has recently attracted attention focuses on the responses of explorers and settlers to new landscapes in order to provide insights into the transformations the landscape itself has undergone as a result of settlement. In this endeavor historiographers examining the history of the Pacific Coast of the United States have traditionally depended on the records left by European American explorers of the nineteenth century who, as commissioned agents of the U.S. government, were instructed to report thoroughly their findings in writing.
But in furthering this investigation some historiographers have recently recognized the need to expand their definition of what a source is. They maintain that the sources traditionally accepted as documenting the history of the Pacific Coast have too often omitted the response of Asian settlers to this territory. In part this is due to the dearth of written records left by Asian settlers; in contrast to the commissioned agents, most of the people who first came to western North America from Asia during this same period did not focus on developing a self-conscious written record of their involvement with the landscape. But because a full study of a culture's historical relationship to its land cannot confine itself to a narrow record of experience, these historiographers have begun to recognize the value of other kinds of evidence, such as the actions of Asian settlers.
As a case in point, the role of Chinese settlers in expanding agriculture throughout the Pacific Coast territory is integral to the history of the region. Without access to the better land, Chinese settlers looked for agricultural potential in this generally arid region where other settlers did not. For example, where settlers of European descent looked at willows and saw only useless, untillable swamp, Chinese settlers saw fresh water, fertile soil, and the potential for bringing water to more arid areas via irrigation. Where other settlers who looked at certain weeds, such as wild mustard, generally saw a nuisance, Chinese settlers saw abundant raw material for valuable spices from a plant naturally suited to the local soil and climate.
Given their role in the labor force shaping this territory in the nineteenth century, the Chinese settlers offered more than just a new view of the land. Their vision was reinforced by specialized skills involving swamp reclamation and irrigation systems, which helped lay the foundation for the now well-known and prosperous agribusiness of the region. That 80 percent of the area's cropland is now irrigated and that the region is currently the top producer of many specialty crops cannot be fully understood by historiographers without attention to the input of Chinese settlers as reconstructed from their interactions with that landscape.
In the field of historiography—the writing of history based on a critical examination of authentic primary information sources—one area that has recently attracted attention focuses on the responses of explorers and settlers to new landscapes in order to provide insights into the transformations the landscape itself has undergone as a result of settlement. In this endeavor historiographers examining the history of the Pacific Coast of the United States have traditionally depended on the records left by European American explorers of the nineteenth century who, as commissioned agents of the U.S. government, were instructed to report thoroughly their findings in writing.
But in furthering this investigation some historiographers have recently recognized the need to expand their definition of what a source is. They maintain that the sources traditionally accepted as documenting the history of the Pacific Coast have too often omitted the response of Asian settlers to this territory. In part this is due to the dearth of written records left by Asian settlers; in contrast to the commissioned agents, most of the people who first came to western North America from Asia during this same period did not focus on developing a self-conscious written record of their involvement with the landscape. But because a full study of a culture's historical relationship to its land cannot confine itself to a narrow record of experience, these historiographers have begun to recognize the value of other kinds of evidence, such as the actions of Asian settlers.
As a case in point, the role of Chinese settlers in expanding agriculture throughout the Pacific Coast territory is integral to the history of the region. Without access to the better land, Chinese settlers looked for agricultural potential in this generally arid region where other settlers did not. For example, where settlers of European descent looked at willows and saw only useless, untillable swamp, Chinese settlers saw fresh water, fertile soil, and the potential for bringing water to more arid areas via irrigation. Where other settlers who looked at certain weeds, such as wild mustard, generally saw a nuisance, Chinese settlers saw abundant raw material for valuable spices from a plant naturally suited to the local soil and climate.
Given their role in the labor force shaping this territory in the nineteenth century, the Chinese settlers offered more than just a new view of the land. Their vision was reinforced by specialized skills involving swamp reclamation and irrigation systems, which helped lay the foundation for the now well-known and prosperous agribusiness of the region. That 80 percent of the area's cropland is now irrigated and that the region is currently the top producer of many specialty crops cannot be fully understood by historiographers without attention to the input of Chinese settlers as reconstructed from their interactions with that landscape.
In the field of historiography—the writing of history based on a critical examination of authentic primary information sources—one area that has recently attracted attention focuses on the responses of explorers and settlers to new landscapes in order to provide insights into the transformations the landscape itself has undergone as a result of settlement. In this endeavor historiographers examining the history of the Pacific Coast of the United States have traditionally depended on the records left by European American explorers of the nineteenth century who, as commissioned agents of the U.S. government, were instructed to report thoroughly their findings in writing.
But in furthering this investigation some historiographers have recently recognized the need to expand their definition of what a source is. They maintain that the sources traditionally accepted as documenting the history of the Pacific Coast have too often omitted the response of Asian settlers to this territory. In part this is due to the dearth of written records left by Asian settlers; in contrast to the commissioned agents, most of the people who first came to western North America from Asia during this same period did not focus on developing a self-conscious written record of their involvement with the landscape. But because a full study of a culture's historical relationship to its land cannot confine itself to a narrow record of experience, these historiographers have begun to recognize the value of other kinds of evidence, such as the actions of Asian settlers.
As a case in point, the role of Chinese settlers in expanding agriculture throughout the Pacific Coast territory is integral to the history of the region. Without access to the better land, Chinese settlers looked for agricultural potential in this generally arid region where other settlers did not. For example, where settlers of European descent looked at willows and saw only useless, untillable swamp, Chinese settlers saw fresh water, fertile soil, and the potential for bringing water to more arid areas via irrigation. Where other settlers who looked at certain weeds, such as wild mustard, generally saw a nuisance, Chinese settlers saw abundant raw material for valuable spices from a plant naturally suited to the local soil and climate.
Given their role in the labor force shaping this territory in the nineteenth century, the Chinese settlers offered more than just a new view of the land. Their vision was reinforced by specialized skills involving swamp reclamation and irrigation systems, which helped lay the foundation for the now well-known and prosperous agribusiness of the region. That 80 percent of the area's cropland is now irrigated and that the region is currently the top producer of many specialty crops cannot be fully understood by historiographers without attention to the input of Chinese settlers as reconstructed from their interactions with that landscape.
In the field of historiography—the writing of history based on a critical examination of authentic primary information sources—one area that has recently attracted attention focuses on the responses of explorers and settlers to new landscapes in order to provide insights into the transformations the landscape itself has undergone as a result of settlement. In this endeavor historiographers examining the history of the Pacific Coast of the United States have traditionally depended on the records left by European American explorers of the nineteenth century who, as commissioned agents of the U.S. government, were instructed to report thoroughly their findings in writing.
But in furthering this investigation some historiographers have recently recognized the need to expand their definition of what a source is. They maintain that the sources traditionally accepted as documenting the history of the Pacific Coast have too often omitted the response of Asian settlers to this territory. In part this is due to the dearth of written records left by Asian settlers; in contrast to the commissioned agents, most of the people who first came to western North America from Asia during this same period did not focus on developing a self-conscious written record of their involvement with the landscape. But because a full study of a culture's historical relationship to its land cannot confine itself to a narrow record of experience, these historiographers have begun to recognize the value of other kinds of evidence, such as the actions of Asian settlers.
As a case in point, the role of Chinese settlers in expanding agriculture throughout the Pacific Coast territory is integral to the history of the region. Without access to the better land, Chinese settlers looked for agricultural potential in this generally arid region where other settlers did not. For example, where settlers of European descent looked at willows and saw only useless, untillable swamp, Chinese settlers saw fresh water, fertile soil, and the potential for bringing water to more arid areas via irrigation. Where other settlers who looked at certain weeds, such as wild mustard, generally saw a nuisance, Chinese settlers saw abundant raw material for valuable spices from a plant naturally suited to the local soil and climate.
Given their role in the labor force shaping this territory in the nineteenth century, the Chinese settlers offered more than just a new view of the land. Their vision was reinforced by specialized skills involving swamp reclamation and irrigation systems, which helped lay the foundation for the now well-known and prosperous agribusiness of the region. That 80 percent of the area's cropland is now irrigated and that the region is currently the top producer of many specialty crops cannot be fully understood by historiographers without attention to the input of Chinese settlers as reconstructed from their interactions with that landscape.
Which one of the following, if true, would most help to strengthen the author's main claim in the last sentence of the passage?
Market research of agribusinesses owned by descendants of Chinese settlers shows that the market for the region's specialty crops has grown substantially faster than the market for any other crops in the last decade.
Nineteenth-century surveying records indicate that the lands now cultivated by specialty crop businesses owned by descendants of Chinese settlers were formerly swamp lands.
Research by university agricultural science departments proves that the formerly arid lands now cultivated by large agribusinesses contain extremely fertile soil when they are sufficiently irrigated.
A technological history tracing the development of irrigation systems in the region reveals that their efficiency has increased steadily since the nineteenth century.
Weather records compiled over the previous century demonstrate that the weather patterns in the region are well-suited to growing certain specialty crops as long as they are irrigated.
Explanations
This question asks us to strengthen the author's argument from the passage's final sentence.
We start by understanding the conclusion—the thing we need to make stronger: Historiographers can't fully understand why 80+% of the land in question is irrigated and churning out specialty crops without understanding the impact and contribution of Chinese settlers in the area.
All we need to find is something that makes it more likely that we will lack a complete understanding of this phenomenon without investigating the impact of Chinese settlers on the area.
Let's have a look.
Nah. This booming growth might be good for the settlers' descendants, but it doesn't help me know that we'll be short of a complete understanding without understanding the contributions of these descendants' ancestors.
Bingo. This works. We learn earlier in the passage that where European settlers saw untamed swamps, Chinese settlers saw agricultural opportunity. Moreover, this answer choice helps the historiographer side of things in our evidence comes from surveying records. This makes it more likely that we won't have a full understanding of things until we find more records like these surveying records.
Nope. This is irrelevant to the conclusion drawn in the passage's final sentence. All this tells me is that, when sufficiently irrigated, these lands have great soil for growing crops. This doesn't help me understand how necessary the impact of Chinese settlers is to fully understanding the current agricultural landscape.
No way. I would expect this is true, but even so, how does this help me understand the extent to which we must uncover Chinese settlers' contributions to and impact on their landscape? It doesn't. So we can't pick this.
No. Again, cool story bro. This is good news for the ag industry in the area. But this doesn't help me understand whether or not we can arrive at a complete understanding of what's going on in this area without better understanding the Chinese settlers.
0 Comments