#18 - Global 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!

[German.Steel]

Maybe this can be chalked up to being an older test with looser standards of precision than today, but I really think this is a deeply flawed question:

The word "skeptical" in (E) is far too weak to approach correctness; note the line that states "Obviously, a more complex societal shift is taking place than the theory of Pan-Indianism can account for." How can the weak "skeptical" in (E) be reconciled with the forceful "obviously" in the passage?

Meanwhile, you can find solid support that the author is uncomfortable with the aspect of Pan-Indianism that suggests that the increase in cultural borrowing across tribes will lead to the inevitable outcome of "the eventual dissolution of tribes and the complete assimilation of native Americans into Euroamerican society." See the last sentence of P3, for example.

If I'm way off base here, please tell me where I'm going wrong. But I've read this passage over and over and can't square how (E) more accurately describes the author's attitude toward the theory of Pan-Indianism than (B). Thanks in advance!

[evelineliu]

Hi there,

Mentioned frequently in Paragraphs 1-3, "Pan-Indianism" is the theory proposed by the sociologists that inter-tribalism will, ultimately, indicate the demise of Native American identity, so "Pan-Indianism" is not the whole story. (E)'s "skeptical" is an elegant way to describe the author's systematic and logical dissection of a theory he deplores. This answer choice essentially paraphrase lines 27-29.

(B) is wrong because the author believes that Native Americans' "cultural borrowings" (inter-tribal activities) are a healthy thing (lines 55-58). In addition, Pan-Indianism does not so much present a "negative characterization" as it does predict an ominous outcome.

Best,
Eveline

[ltowns1]

I was having major difficulty with this one. To me lines 39-40 seem to refute the idea that the Pan-Indianism was even a viable explanation at all. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seemed that the author took a totally negative view of the theory. I understand the lines mentioned in the above post lend it support, but it just seemed like the author was more down on the theory. Taken with the evidence from 39-40 which said that there is no evidence to suggest that theory's assumption is true, I dismissed (E)

[Adam Tyson]

As I read it, ltowns1, our author thinks the Pan-Indianism theory is too simplistic, but not completely wrong. As is common in many RC passages, the author offers some qualified support for a theory that they simultaneously reject. For example, our author acknowledges that intertribalism has been increasing. At the end of the second paragraph, rather than completely rejecting the theory, the author says that something "more complex" is taking place. In the fourth paragraph the author concedes that "intertribal activities are a major facet of native American culture today," which can be seen as an indication that at least some aspects of Pan-Indianism are accurate, if overly simple. And in the final paragraph the author tells us that intertribal activities do play a role in protecting native American identify in a more general sense, even while tribal identities and cultures remain distinct.

To me, all of this adds up to less than an outright rejection and more along the lines of "it's not that simple." Skepticism is, in my view, the perfect word to describe that view.

And going back to answer B for a moment, that answer cannot be correct because the Pan-Indianism theory does NOT have a negative view of cultural borrowing! It's the author who has those negative views about the theory, rather than the theory having negative views. Those sociologists who support the theory seem to see it in a very matter-of-fact way, as in "this is what is happening," rather than "this is a bad thing." So answer B is describing something that did not occur within the text, and thus must be rejected.