Many scholars believe that official medieval persecutions of various minority groups were undertaken very reluctantly by medieval authorities and only in order to soothe popular unrest caused by underlying popular hostility to the groups in question. ████ ██████ ██ ██████ █████████████ ███ ███ ██████ █████ ███ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████████ ███████ █████████ ██████ ██████████ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ████████████ ████ ████████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ███ ████████ ███ ████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ████████████ ███████ ███ ██ ████████ ███████████ ████ ██ ████ ███ ██ ███████ ███████ █████ ██████ ████ ████ ███████████ ████████ █████ ██████████████ █████ ██ ███████
The argument concludes that it's questionable to believe that medieval persecutions of minority groups were undertaken just to soothe popular hostility, as many scholars do. The argument offers two points which undermine the scholars' belief.
First, there isn't really evidence of underlying hostility which would support this belief. Second, the worst persecutions targeted potential threats to the reigning authorities. This implies that at least some persecutions had a specific political goal, rather than just being popular appeasements.
Which one of the following, ██ █████ ████ ███████████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██████ ██ █████████████
Official persecutions in ████████ █████ ████ ███████ ████████ ██ ██████████ ██████████ ██████████ █████████ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██ ███████████
(A) provides further evidence that there was no underlying hostility for medieval authorities to appease. Instead, it suggests that authorities deliberately chose groups to target, and only then worked to create popular hostility against those groups.
Medieval minority communities █████ ███████ █████ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ ████████ █████████████
If official institutions directly protected minorities, then why would medieval authorities persecute those groups? If anything, (B) supports a component of the "questionable" scholars' belief: that persecutions were reluctant. It doesn't strengthen the case that they were deliberate.
Some groups, such ██ █████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ██ ██ ██████████ ████████ ████████████
(C) gives us some evidence of underlying hostility that was actually strong enough to result in mob violence. That only strengthens the scholars' belief, rather than the claim that their belief is questionable.
Many medieval leaders ███████ ██ █████████ ███ █████████████ ██ ███████████ ███████████████ ███ █████████ █████████ ██ ██████████ █████████ ███████████
In other words, medieval authorities took at least some measures to protect minorities. Like (B), this offers some support for the scholars' belief that the persecutions were reluctant. It does not, conversely, support the claim that this belief is questionable.
Convicted felons were █████ ███████ ████████ ████ █████████████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███ ████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ █ ████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███ ██ ████████████
The argument is just talking about persecution, so non-persecution practices are neither here nor there. Our question isn't even whether persecution happened, it's why it happened. (E) doesn't tell us anything more on that front.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnosticWant to know why the right answer is right?
7Sage membership unlocks explanations of every question. Every answer choice. On every official PrepTest. Start with a free account.