Immigration IV

Welcome! You are encouraged to register with the site and login (for free). When you register, you support the site and your question history is saved.

     One strain of historical thought that achieved popularity in the 1950s forwarded the notion that immigration - more than the frontier experience, or any other specific event or factor - had been and continued to be the defining element of United States history. In this depiction, the 30 million immigrants who entered the country between 1820 and 1900 had common experiences regardless of their national, religion, or race: namely, in experiencing hardship and alienation, they themselves changed, but they also carried on the development of the nation itself.
     Both casual and formal students of history should, however, be careful in equating the experiences of different groups of immigrants, especially under the somewhat blurring concept of "hardship." The description that all immigrants experienced hardship and immigration fails to account properly for the fact that in the 17th and 18th century millions of Africans were forcibly shipped to the United States and sold into slavery. While this group of people should not be excluded from any full reckoning of the nation's migrants, its alienation and hardship was of a substantially different character from that of the other populations, who migrated more willingly and independently and who arrived under and lived in vastly different conditions. If it is, indeed, the hardship and alienation experienced by the nation's migrants that have above all shaped both them and their nation, then to ignore this distinction would be to distort an important element of what our nation has been shaped to be.

Which of the following best describes the function of the last sentence of the passage?

Review: Immigration IV


Explanation 

In this question, let's form some views before we turn to the answer choices. What is the author saying, in simple terms? The "distort" term reinforces that the author has found a flaw with this immigration theory of history. But he's stating the flaw in a particular way. Why does he start with the clause, "If it is, indeed, the hardship and alienation experienced by the nation's migrants that have above all shaped both them and their nation"? Evidently, the author does not necessarily disagree with the idea itself that hardship and alienation of the migrants was defining in American history. He's saying that maybe it is, but if it is, then the problem he has pointed out is especially important.

Having taken a close look, let's turn to the answer choices. The sentence is not providing an example, but rather a form of summary, so choice (A) is out. (B) may have potential, so we'll come back to it. (C) might sound promising initially, but there is no evidence in this sentence--no examples or facts. The sentence reads more like a conclusion. So (C) is out. (D) goes too far because the author does not appear to think the contradiction is irreconcilable, as we pointed out when looking at the "if" word above. (E) sounds promising in the use of the word "if"--but what are the conditions? The author hasn't stated them; rather, he has stated the consequences of not repairing the theory. This is more fitting to (B). The critical relationship, as we mentioned, is that if hardship is important, then the flaw pointed out by the author is especially important.

The correct answer is (B).


If you believe you have found an error in this question or explanation, please contact us and include the question title or URL in your message.
Continue »