Items that seem unremarkable today might once have altered

[davetzulin]

Items that seem unremarkable today might once have altered the course of history. For centuries, the nutmeg tree grew only in the Banda Islands, a small chain in the southwest Pacific. Locals harvested the aromatic nuts of the tree and sold them to traders. Eventually, a spice made from these nuts became a luxury item in the European market, via Venetian merchants. Seeking a monopoly over this valuable spice, the Dutch attacked the Banda Islands, subjugating the native people in a mostly successful attempt to control the trade.
However, one island in the Banda chain remained in the hands of the British and was the object of much conflict between the Netherlands and England. After many battles, the British offered to cede control of the island in exchange for New Amsterdam, a Dutch outpost on the east coast of North America. Inveterate traders, the Dutch were more interested in the spice trade than in the small outpost of New Amsterdam. In 1667, the Treaty of Breda gave the Dutch complete control of the Banda Islands, and thus of the nutmeg trade, and gave the British New Amsterdam, which they promptly renamed New York. Today, nutmeg trees can be found in many countries and no one company or country has a monopoly on the trade.


In the passage, the author is primarily interested in

(A) tracing the history of a major city

(B) discussing the role of commonplace items in world development

(C) offering a specific example to support a general claim

(D) arguing for continued research into political history

(E) presenting an innovative view of a commonplace item





OA = C


My question is on answer choice B. I agree with the answer explanation that the passage talks about a single commonplace item that affected world development, not MULTIPLE. However, I was thinking of an example like:

baking soda is a great home remedy for coughs,etc.

author is primarily interested in
home items useful for more than what they were intended for


baking soda is a member of home items, do we have to say "A home item"?

also, if you were to change B to:

discussing the role of a commonplace item in world development

it might suggest that there is only one commonplace item that has ever affected the world on such a scale.

in any case, i haven't seen any Official RC problems that have tried to exploit a reader missing something as this. Is this something I should beware for?

[tim]

they try to trick you with this all the time. the distinction between singular and plural is at the heart of a lot of wrong answers. and i can't see how "discussing the role of a commonplace item in world development" can possibly suggest only one thing had such an effect. all it suggests is that the author was only interested in talking about one of them..

[davetzulin]

thanks Tim, I'm really glad you pointed out this trick they try. I'll be on the look out for it now.

[tim]

good to hear!

[rohit.manglik]

Hi Tim,

In option C, we have "general claim". It might be a claim made only by the Author. I thought we can effectively say general claim only when we have "It was a common belief that", "Many people believed that" etc sort of phrases in the passage.

Kindly help.

[Chelsey Cooley]

That's one meaning of the term 'general', but 'general' can also simply mean 'not specific', as it does here. Whether something is 'general' or 'specific' isn't a technical term, it's just a commonsense one and often depends on the context. In this example, you could reasonably say that 'Nutmeg changed the course of history' is a specific claim, since it's about a specific object, and 'Unremarkable objects change the course of history' is a general claim.