Historians point to the rule of the Piast dynasty as crucial to the formation of the Polish state. However, some...
GMAT Information and Ideas : (Ideas) Questions
Historians point to the rule of the Piast dynasty as crucial to the formation of the Polish state. However, some differentiate between members of the dynasty like Mieszko II Lambert, who ruled as king from 1025 to 1031 CE, and less well-documented figures like Siemomysł, who is said to have ruled in the 10th century but whose historical actuality is disputed. Siemomysł appears in the Gesta principum Polonorum, a chronicle of medieval Polish history written between 1112 and 1118. However, the chronicle's documentation of Siemomysł relies on oral tradition, unlike its records of later rulers.
According to the text, what is a difference between how historians view Siemomysł and how they view Mieszko II Lambert?
Step 1: Decode and Map the Passage
Part A: Create Passage Analysis Table
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| "Historians point to the rule of the Piast dynasty as crucial to the formation of the Polish state." |
|
| "However, some differentiate between members of the dynasty like Mieszko II Lambert, who ruled as king from 1025 to 1031 CE, and less well-documented figures like Siemomysł, who is said to have ruled in the 10th century but whose historical actuality is disputed." |
|
| "Siemomysł appears in the Gesta principum Polonorum, a chronicle of medieval Polish history written between 1112 and 1118." |
|
| "However, the chronicle's documentation of Siemomysł relies on oral tradition, unlike its records of later rulers." |
|
Part B: Provide Passage Architecture & Core Elements
Main Point: While historians recognize the Piast dynasty's importance to Poland's formation, they treat different dynasty members differently based on the quality of historical evidence available.
Argument Flow: The passage establishes the dynasty's overall importance, then shows how historians make distinctions within the dynasty based on documentation quality, using Mieszko II Lambert (well-documented) and Siemomysł (disputed due to weak evidence) as contrasting examples.
Step 2: Interpret the Question Precisely
What's being asked? A specific difference in historians' views of these two rulers
What type of answer do we need? A contrast showing different historical treatment/perspective
Any limiting keywords? According to the text means we must stick to what's explicitly stated
Step 3: Prethink the Answer
- From our analysis, historians treat these two figures very differently:
- Mieszko II Lambert is presented as well-documented with specific dates and clear kingship
- Siemomysł is described as having disputed historical actuality and relying only on oral tradition
- The key difference is about certainty of existence - historians seem confident about Mieszko II Lambert but uncertain about whether Siemomysł actually existed.
- Directly matches our passage analysis - Mieszko II Lambert is presented as documented fact while Siemomysł's historical actuality is disputed.
- The word disputed in the passage clearly indicates disagreement about Siemomysł's existence.
- No such dispute is mentioned regarding Mieszko II Lambert.
- Contradicts the passage - the chronicle actually provides weaker evidence for Siemomysł (oral tradition only).
- The passage states the chronicle's documentation of Siemomysł relies on oral tradition, unlike its records of later rulers.
- This suggests less reliable evidence for Siemomysł, not more.
- Gets the timeline backwards - Siemomysł ruled in the 10th century while Mieszko II Lambert ruled 1025-1031 CE.
- The passage doesn't suggest historians agree on timing - the issue is about existence, not chronology.
- The passage mentions oral tradition only in connection with Siemomysł's documentation.
- No mention of oral stories about Mieszko II Lambert at all.
- Misrepresents what the passage actually discusses.