Q15

[gawker]

Is D unsupported, in that they may have learned about the fishing practice through another way?

[ohthatpatrick]

The question stem is saying, "FISHING was brought up as an example of ____ ".

This seems like it will play out like RC question stems that sound like,
"The author mentioned FISHING in order to"
"The author mentioned FISHING primarily to"

They're asking us to connect the specific detail to the broader local purpose.

Look for a framing idea a sentence or two before to remind yourself of the broader local point being made.

In the context of the passage, we know the examples in P2 are examples of when wampum came in loose beads and was used with religious significance. The fishing practice is an example of the wampum beads being used with religious significance (because the beads are being thrown into the water where the Haudenosaune fish, in the hopes that one of the two Gods would help there be fish).

(A) this wasn't a type of knowledge (this sounds more like encoding the Constitution)

(B) we don't hear anything about Europeans altering this. This is just a "Word Blender" answer from 1st paragraph.

(C) the Confederacy is DEFINITELY just a "Word Blender" answer from the 3rd paragraph.

(D) Where is there any support that historians learned about this practice by studying wampum? According to line 28, they learned it "from legend".

(E) Sure. This reinforces line 13-15, which told us that wampum began with religious significance. And since line 28 tells us that "legend indicates" this fishing practice, calling it "traditional" seems safe.

(E) is the correct answer.