Question

The primary purpose of the passage is to

• A. question the published conclusions of a scholar concerning the history of the Iroquois nation
• B. establish the relationship between an earlier scholar's work and new anthropological research
• C. summarize scholarly controversy concerning an incident from Iroquois history
• D. trace two generations of scholarly opinion concerning Iroquois social institutions
• E. differentiate between Iroquois political practices and Iroquois religious practices
• A. provocative and potentially useful, but flawed by poor organization
• B. eloquently presented, but needlessly inflammatory
• C. accurate in some of its particulars, but inaccurate with regard to an important point.
• D. historically sound, but overly detailed and redundant
• J. persuasive in its time, but now largely outdated
• A. Chiefs became more involved in their tribes' religious affairs.
• B. The authority of the chiefs' council over the affairs of individual tribes increased.
• C. The political influence of the Iroquois shamans was diminished.
• D. Individual tribes coalesced into the Iroquois tribal league.
• O. The longhouse because a political rather than a religious institution.
• A. Smith has overstated the importance of the political role played by Iroquois tribal chiefs in the nineteenth century.
• B. Smith has overlooked the fact that the Iroquois rarely allowed their shamans to exercise political authority.
• C. Smith has failed to explain why the chiefs' council was dissolved late in the nineteenth century.
• D. Smith has failed to acknowledge the role prior to the nineteenth century of the Iroquois tribal chiefs in religious affairs.
• T. Smith has failed to recognize that the very structure of Iroquois social institutions reflects religious beliefs.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question asks for the primary purpose of the passage. We need to read the entire passage and determine the author's main goal or intention.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
Let's break down the passage structure: - Paragraph 1: The author presents the argument of a scholar named Smith. Smith claims there was a traditional, strict division of power between political chiefs and religious shamans.
- Paragraph 2: The author begins with the word "However," which signals a rebuttal or correction. The author then argues that Smith is wrong ("Smith fails to recognize..."). The author provides a counter-argument, stating that the division of power Smith described was a recent development resulting from resettlement, and that traditionally, chiefs (in the longhouse) had influence over both political and religious matters. The overall structure is to present an existing argument and then refute it. The author's primary goal is to critique Smith's conclusions. Now let's evaluate the options:

(A) question the published conclusions of a scholar concerning the history of the Iroquois nation: This perfectly describes the passage's structure. The author questions the conclusions of the scholar, Smith. This is the correct answer.
(B) The author critiques Smith but doesn't mention "new anthropological research" or establishing a relationship with it.
(C) The passage presents a critique of one scholar's view, not a summary of a broader "scholarly controversy" between multiple parties.
(D) The passage discusses Smith's opinion and the author's correction; it doesn't trace "two generations" of opinion.
(E) While the passage discusses political and religious practices, its main goal is not simply to differentiate them, but to critique Smith's specific argument about how power over them was divided.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The author's main purpose is to challenge the argument made by the scholar Smith regarding the historical division of power in the Iroquois nation.

Answer 2

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question asks for the author's overall opinion of Smith's argument. We need to analyze the author's tone and specific criticisms to determine their assessment.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The author presents Smith's argument in the first paragraph: Smith claims there was a strict division of power, which changed in the late nineteenth century. The author doesn't dispute that this division existed at some point. The author's critique, starting with "However, Smith fails to recognize...", is about the \textit{origin} and \textit{historical context} of this division. The author argues that this division was not a long-standing tradition but rather a recent development caused by resettlement on reservations.
This means the author agrees with Smith on the "what" (a division of power existed) but disagrees on the "why" and "when" (the historical roots of this division). Smith's description of the 19th-century situation is likely accurate, but his claim that it was the "traditional" way is the major flaw. Let's evaluate the options based on this analysis:

(A) The author's critique is not about "poor organization."
(B) The author's tone is academic and critical, not focused on the eloquence or inflammatory nature of Smith's writing.
(C) This fits perfectly. Smith's description of the division of power in the 19th century is likely accurate (accurate in some particulars), but his claim about this being the traditional, long-standing structure is wrong (inaccurate with regard to an important point - the historical origin).
(D) The author explicitly argues that Smith's argument is \textit{not} historically sound regarding Iroquois tradition.
(E) The author's criticism is based on factual inaccuracy, not that the argument is simply "outdated."
Step 3: Final Answer:
The author's critique implies that Smith correctly identified the division of power that existed later in Iroquois history but was fundamentally mistaken about its origins, making his argument accurate in part but wrong on a crucial historical point.

Answer 3

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question asks what the author implies about the changes in Iroquois society \textit{after} resettlement. The author contrasts the pre- and post-resettlement periods to critique Smith. We need to identify what characterized the post-resettlement period.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The author's argument is that the division of power Smith described was a result of resettlement. Let's analyze the author's description of the \textit{pre-resettlement} period (lines 16-21): "Prior to resettlement, the chiefs' council controlled only the broad policy of the tribal league; individual tribes had institutions... to govern their own affairs. In the longhouse, the tribe's chief influenced both political and religious affairs."
The author presents Smith's view as a description of the post-resettlement reality. Smith's view is that the "chiefs' council... maintained complete control over the political affairs of... the individual tribes" (lines 2-5).
By stating that this was \textit{not} the case before resettlement (when the council only controlled "broad policy"), the author implies that after resettlement, the council's power over individual tribes increased to the "complete control" that Smith describes. Let's evaluate the options:

(A) According to Smith (whose argument the author applies to the post-resettlement period), chiefs only became more involved in religious affairs in the \textit{late} nineteenth century, after their political power was diminished. This was not a direct result of the \textit{early} nineteenth-century resettlement.
(B) This is strongly implied. Before resettlement, the council had limited power over individual tribes. After resettlement, the situation Smith describes (council has "complete control" over tribes) came into being. This represents an increase in the council's authority.
(C) The passage discusses the chiefs' involvement in religion, but not a change in the shamans' political influence.
(D) The tribes were already part of the Iroquois tribal league before resettlement.
(E) The passage states that before resettlement, the longhouse was where a chief influenced both politics and religion. It doesn't imply that the longhouse's function changed after resettlement, but rather that its power, and that of the individual tribe, was superseded by the council.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The author's contrast between the council's limited pre-resettlement power and the total control Smith describes (which the author situates in the post-resettlement era) implies that the council's authority over individual tribes increased after resettlement.

Answer 4

Step 1: Understanding the Concept:
This question asks us to identify an opinion held by the author. We need to find the statement that accurately reflects the author's own argument or critique of Smith.
Step 2: Detailed Explanation:
The author's main point of critique is stated explicitly in the second paragraph. The author argues against Smith's idea of a strict, traditional separation of political and religious power. The author's counter-evidence is the pre-resettlement situation: "In the longhouse, the tribe's chief influenced both political and religious affairs" (lines 20-21).
This directly contradicts Smith's claim that there was a long-standing tradition of "sole jurisdiction over religious affairs resid[ing] with the shamans." The author's opinion is that Smith is wrong about this traditional separation because he missed the fact that chiefs historically had a religious role. Let's evaluate the options:

(A) The author doesn't argue that Smith overstated the chiefs' political role; the disagreement is about the chiefs' religious role and the history of the power structure.
(B) Smith's argument is that shamans had sole religious authority, not political authority. The author doesn't discuss shamans having political authority.
(C) The author doesn't criticize Smith for failing to explain the council's dissolution; the main critique is about the historical period before resettlement.
(D) This perfectly captures the author's main criticism. The author's key piece of evidence is that "prior to resettlement," in the longhouse, chiefs influenced religious affairs. By claiming the separation was traditional, Smith "failed to acknowledge" this earlier, integrated role.
(E) The author's argument is more specific, focusing on the chief's role, not the entire structure of social institutions reflecting religious beliefs.
Step 3: Final Answer:
The author's central criticism of Smith is that his model of a strict separation of power is historically inaccurate because it ignores the fact that before the 19th century, tribal chiefs did have a role in religious affairs.