DISCUSSION: This question is asking about mainstream history. That’s described in lines 26-34. Mainstream history was nationalism and focussed on national character and destiny.
- This is different. Nationalism was a new thing in the late 19th century.
- CORRECT. See lines 32-34. Nationalist historians argued that nations had inevitabilities and destinies. That’s similar to the argument here that the novelist had a destiny caused by her innate talent.
- This is a different (and flawed) argument. It would mean that if I combined sugar with beet juice with the purpose of permanently curing diabetes, then my cure must be the best, if it was the only one made with that specific intent. That’s just silly, and has no parallels with what mainstream historians believed.
- Nationalist historians weren’t warning of dangers. They were trying to describe national characters.
- This describes a procedure for experiments. It has nothing to do with making histories about national character.
Want a free Reading Comp lesson?
Get a free sample of the Reading Comprehension Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving RC questions