#17 - Global Reference, Must be True, Author's Perspective

[amydg]

I was stuck between C and D and there doesn't seem to be sufficient textual evidence for either but I chose D because I thought there was no textual evidence for C.

[Emily Haney-Caron]

Hi Amy,

There is not any textual support for D. C, on the other hand, can be inferred. Between lines 15 and 20, we find out the original significance of colors. Then, from line 35 on, we learn how new meanings developed, and they seem to relate to the original significance and usage without being directly connected. I agree with you that none of the answer choices seems perfect here; but remember that we are looking for the best answer, not a perfect answer.

[emyang]

Hi, I'm confused between C and E in this question. Could you explain to me why E is wrong? Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

My first problem with answer E here, emyang, is that it is speculative. How can we know anything about what the author would say about circumstances other than the ones that actually occurred? It's the same with answer A, which presents a hypothetical alternate universe and asks us to determine what the author would say about it. We just can't know!

Looked at another way, if the Europeans who first began trading with the Haudenosaune knew that wampum was primarily used for communication, the author might still have said "but they probably would have ignored that and used it as currency anyway." We have no evidence in the passage about what the author would say on the subject, and so we cannot select this answer. We have to base it solely on what we read, and not on what we might assume about what we read.

Answer C is supported by the text, because it essentially restates the evolution of wampum as described by the author. Nothing new is added, and everything in the answer goes hand-in-hand with the text of the passage. Loose beads got their meaning from their colors, and that was an early stage in the communicative function of wampum. Later, as wampum evolved, the belts got meaning from symbols and arrangements, not necessarily from (or solely from) the colors.

Avoid excess speculation and outside assumptions, emyang! Base your answers solely on the text of the passage. Good luck, keep at it!

[AnimalCrossingLSATer]

Hi PowerScore!

I chose B for this question during my timed test, and then chose B again when doing this question untimed before seeing the correct answer (C) , though I actually had C as one of my two contenders. I was deterred by C on both occasions when C states that the associations of colors were important precursors and serve as the foundation for later wampum representations that didn’t depend directly on those associations of the two wampum colors. That, to me, suggests that the associations of color are before the formation of the Confederacy. In particular (and I’m probably going to sound dumb on here), at the time of my untimed review, I felt these “later wampum representations” referred to the formation of the Confederacy in the third paragraph, and that while a date was given for the formation of the Confederacy (1451, per line 39), there was no date expressed (e.g. 1450 or earlier) to confirm that the associations of color with wampum really were before the formation of the confederacy (as discussed in the third paragraph).

For what’s it’s worth, I was able to comfortably eliminate A (lack of evidence), D (unsupported comparison), and E (lack of evidence).

Looking back at B after my second untimed review, I notice that B puts in a causal connection between “use of colors in wampum to express meaning” and “formation of the Haudenosaune Confederacy”, because of the “arose in response to” separating the former concept from the latter. While lines 56-57 do state that "the arrangements of the two colors also direct interpretation of the (wampum’s) symbols”, it doesn’t seem to be sufficient to assert a causal connection between the associations of the two colors and the formation of the confederacy.

With all those said, my questions are:

1) Is B incorrect because it’s one of those incorrect answers where concepts have been taken from the passage, but are connected in a way that is ultimately unsupported from the passage? And,

2) Did I miss a commonsense assumption or anything in the text that confirms that the use of colors to express meaning preceded the formation of the confederacy, or am I reading too much into the text? The text does mention the “ancient Haudenosaune anglers” in line 29, but wasn’t sure if that, alone, is sufficient to infer that the association of colors was before the formation of the confederacy in 1451. (Maybe this is just me with thinking that "ancient", at the time, was too subjective to definitively mean "before 1450").

Thanks very much for your assistance with these questions!

-Dustine B. (“AnimalCrossingLSATer”)

[Adam Tyson]

All the evidence you need can be found in the second paragraph, AnimalCrossingLSATer, where the author tells us that "Loose beads constituted the simplest and oldest form of wampum." Then the passage goes on to tell us about the meanings of the colors - white for Sapling and purple for Flint.

The rest of the passage is arranged chronologically. After loose beads came string wampum, and then in the final evolution we got wampum belts, which is when the meaning became deliberately symbolic. Loose beads, and the meaning of the colors, were the oldest, so there is no way the colors could have gotten their meanings "in response to the formation of the Haudenosaune Confederacy."

[AnimalCrossingLSATer]

All the evidence you need can be found in the second paragraph, AnimalCrossingLSATer, where the author tells us that "Loose beads constituted the simplest and oldest form of wampum." Then the passage goes on to tell us about the meanings of the colors - white for Sapling and purple for Flint.

The rest of the passage is arranged chronologically. After loose beads came string wampum, and then in the final evolution we got wampum belts, which is when the meaning became deliberately symbolic. Loose beads, and the meaning of the colors, were the oldest, so there is no way the colors could have gotten their meanings "in response to the formation of the Haudenosaune Confederacy."

Yeah, when I got to your 2nd paragraph, I immediately thought "did I read this passage in a progression (i.e. with knowing the path of the passage, not merely the bit and pieces in the paragraphs themselves)?" At least that was one of my initial thoughts.

Thanks, Adam, for the explanation.