Self-study
Generations of European-history students have been taught that a political assassination caused the First World War. ███████ ████ ██████████████ ████████ ████ ████████ ██ █████ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ███ █████ ███ ████ ████████ ███████ ███ ████████ ███ █████████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ███ ████████ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ████████ █████ ████ ███ ██████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ███████ ███ █████████████ ███ █ █████ ████ ██ █ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ██████████ █████ ████ ███████ ██ ██████ █ █████████████ ████ ████ ██ ███ ██████████ ███████████ ███████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The teaching that a political assassination started World War 1 is misleading unless further qualified. Why? Certain factors (treaties, alliances, military force) were core causes of the war, whereas the assassination was an incidental and interchangeable cause.
Identify Conclusion
The conclusion is that teaching that a political assassination alone caused World War 1 “is bound to mislead.”
7.
Which one of the following ████ ██████████ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ ███ ████████
a
The assassination did ███ █████ ███ ████ █████ ███ █████████████ ███ ████ ███ ████ ██ █ █████ ██ ██████ ███████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ █████ ███ █████ █████ ██ █████ ██████ ███ ████████
The author never claims that the assassination did not cause the war. Even though the author believes the assassination was only a cause “in a trivial sense”, it still counts as a cause.
b
The war was ████████ ██ ███████ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ███████ ██ ██ ████ █████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ████████
The argument doesn’t make any claims about whether the circumstances leading to the war were inevitable; the author does claim that the given circumstances would inevitably lead to war, but maybe something could’ve been done to prevent those circumstances.
c
Though the statement ████ ███ █████████████ ██████ ███ ███ ██ █████ ███ ████ ███████ ████ █████████████ ███████ ██ ███ ██████████ ████ ████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ █████ ██ █████ ███ ████
This is a fair restatement of the conclusion. The author agrees that the assassination caused the war, but argues that the conditions of the time were a “deeper,” i.e. more fundamental, cause. This is why teaching that the assassination alone caused the war is misleading.
d
If the assassination ███ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ███ ████ ████████ █████ ███ ██ ████ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ███ █████ ████████ █████ ████ ████ ████████████ ███████ ██ ███ ███ █████ ███ ████ ████████ ██ ████
The author doesn’t speculate about what might have happened if the conditions had been different. The argument is simply aimed at clarifying that the assassination was not the most important cause of the war.
e
Although the conditions ██████████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ███ ███ ███ ████ █████████ ██ ███ █████████████ ██ █████ ███ ████ █████ ███ ██████ ████ █████ ████████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████
The author doesn’t speculate about what might have happened if the assassination hadn’t occurred. The argument is about what can be considered a cause of the war, and to what degree; it’s not about a possible alternative history.