In this question here, underlined in black is what I thought should be evidence in support of D.
In hindsight, underlined in red is what I thought should be evidence in support of B in addition to whatever is highlighted in black (to prove that the “widespread assumption” is false and that it would “enrich the general historical scholarship of that period.”) . Since the “widespread assumption” and the part highlighted in red are so far apart, I thought they wouldn’t be so closely linked.
To me, both of the options seem to be plausible, with D being the winner especially given that it is an inference question. Why does ETS seem to have a different answer then? Or in other words, what part of the evidence am I missing here that would make D an easy elimination?
D is wrong since their assumption IS a plausible reason they didn’t study civil law (they assumed “most people…had little contact with civil law”.
You’re right about the black underlined text supporting choice B. The red underlined text is irrelevant to either choice - Maitland is not one of the “historians” because his / her opinion is different than theirs.e
Wait, I thought the author went on to explain why the assumption was wrong. So why then would the explanation be plausible?
For option B, how would we justify the “enrich the general historical scholarship” part of the answer choice? I thought that the red underlined portion served to justify this part of the answer choice.
D being wrong doesn’t mean the assumption is plausible. D is wrong because not understanding how prevalent civil law was is a great explanation for why you might have the wrong assumption.
I think “enrich…” is common sense but also is helped by the first sentence.
Oh I think I see it now. The author says that the assumption is plausible, but then goes on to undermine its plausibility with the part underlined in black. But implausible, as suggested by option D, is too strong to fit what they did there. Do I have it right?
