Can somebody rip this sentence apart, and rephrase it into the simpler one?
“The acts, at the very least, caused the position of White servants to remain no better than it had been before the 1660’s.” ( Ref: Page # 173, Test # 4, Big Book)
Thank You
Edit 1: Thanks for the response and your time guys. One thing that seems counterintuitive to me is, how you are inferring the no change or even worst. Since at the very least with “no improvement” implies that’s the minimum, right?
Means, (White servants’ status) >= No improvement. If the no change/stagnation is the minima/the worst case, then there is the possibility of improvement as well.
Couple of examples:
It will change your life or, at the very least, teach you something new, i.e. at worst the person learns something new
Actually, this threat at the very least negligible.
i.e. even in the worst case, it’s merely nominal => overall harmless, and not negligible or even worse.
Where am I thinking wrong? Probably a bit elaborated answer would help.
The position of the White servants was perhaps the same if not worse than it was before the 1600s.
Not sure if this helps
Edit: So at the very least the act may have caused no improvement to their position
This is what I got from this sentence-----the effect of this act made the White servant’s position better after the 1660s, but before the 1660s, the act didn’t help.
Thanks Nanah, if at the very least the act may have caused no improvement to their position, then at best or possibly the act have caused improvement, right?
Hey! You’re not thinking wrong exactly. The acts, at the very least, caused them to remain no better than…
No better than = just (or almost) the same as (something bad) The acts, at a minimum, caused them to remain just as bad.
Do you see the negative tone it implies? This is almost idiomatic, I think.
Edit: Maybe establishing a timeline will make it clearer.
The present is no better than the past.
Present is the same as past or present is worse than past.
This means the present is definitely not better than the past.
When you put an idiomatic notion than it clarifies a bit. Now, coming to your example, The present is no better than the past indeed, it imply “Present is either the same as the past or present is worse than the past.”
However, when you say, At the very least, present is no better than the past, will the meaning stay same? If so, how do you identify that?
the acts (Laws passed) at the very least (at minimum), caused the position of White Servants (effect the law had on white servants) to remain no better than(just or almost the same as something bad; merely) it had been before the 1660’s(Situation before the law similar to situation after the law)
So we can see that while the Handle thought that the position of white slave was improving after the 1660’s, the author argues that their position while didn’t diminished remained the same as it was before 1660 —> Same as option D
I agree with your paraphrasing that, “at minimum the effect the law had on white servants was almost the same”. So won’t that mean: (effect the law had on white servants) >= almost the same, therefore the possibility of better change as well.
The option D would be perfect if instead of “at the very least”, “at the very best” has been mentioned. i.e. The acts, at the very best, caused the position of white servants to remain no better than it had been before the 1660’s which aligns with the line 10-13
And at best and at least are opposite to each other.
I just don’t get how everyone is interpreting “at the very least” in a counterintuitive manner? What am I missing?
