NutMeg Trade

[goelmohit2002]

Commonplace items sometimes play surprising roles in world development. For example, though most people today associate nutmeg with simple baked goods, this common spice once altered the course of political 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 these nuts, from which the spice is made, ended up as a luxury item in the European market, via Venetian spice merchants. Eager to establish a monopoly over this valuable spice, the Dutch attacked the Bandas, subjugating the native people in a mostly successful attempt to control the nutmeg 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. At the time, the Dutch, inveterate traders, were more interested in the spice trade than in the mercantile value of New Amsterdam and so accepted the offer. 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.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the claim that New Amsterdam would have remained a Dutch possession if not for the conflict over nutmeg?

A) Attempts to cultivate nutmeg trees outside of the Banda Islands had failed.
B) Few people lived in New Amsterdam before it was ceded to the British.
C) The British controlled trade in other valuable spices, such as cloves.
D) New Amsterdam served as a trading center for furs exported to Europe.
E) The Netherlands controlled no North American territories other than New Amsterdam.

OA = D.

To me...D looks totally out of scope...there is no mention of fur and we IMO cannot assume anything about the same .....

[dilipgmat]

I had the same problem with the question .. OA..

But when u look the following sentence ...

At the time, the Dutch, inveterate traders, were more interested in the spice trade than in the mercantile value of New Amsterdam and so accepted the offer.

It kinda refers to the fact that New Amsterdam was of some value to Dutch..

Also the question mentions... " which of the following statements , if true" .. So we kinda have to assume that "New Amsterdam served as a trading center for furs exported to Europe" is true .. Even if it not mentioned in the passage .. And see whether it strengthens " New Amsterdam would have remained in Dutch possession for the fur trade it offered".

Hope this helps!!!

[goelmohit2002]

IMO this requires us to assume a lot :-)

[RonPurewal]

IMO this requires us to assume a lot :-)

maybe, but you have to realize that this is the way in which these questions are usually written.

when you get a STRENGTHEN or WEAKEN question, it doesn't matter whether a choice is technically "out-of-scope", since you are simply to ASSUME that the statements in the choices are true.

in other words, if you saw the following answer choice instead:
aliens from outer space would have killed all the dutch people for getting rid of new amsterdam, allowing them to live only if they controlled the nutmeg trade.

this answer choices would of course be outrageous, but, if it appeared in the choices, it would be correct!

when you read strengthen/weaken problems, DO NOT underestimate the value of those little words, "if true". this means that, whatever is stated in the answer choice, you are simply to assume that it is true.

this is in stark contrast to "find the assumption" and "draw the conclusion" questions, on which you have to select statements that MUST be true given the premises of the argument.

make sure you adjust your strategies to the question types!

[pratapravi.singh19]

The given answer D should be wrong.
Here's why I think so:

The passage mentions:
the Dutch, inveterate traders, were more interested in the spice trade than in the mercantile value of New Amsterdam

>> It clearly says that Dutch were interested in spice trade and not in the value offered by Amsterdam in providing trading opportunities.

The option D 'New Amsterdam served as a trading center for furs exported to Europe.' doesn't strengthen because it talks about the trading value (mercentile) offered by Amsterdam. Doesn't even talk about spice trade.

However, option A 'Attempts to cultivate nutmeg trees outside of the Banda Islands had failed' does strengthen the argument in a way but again not thoroughly.
If one could not cultivate nutmeg outside of the islands, then they would have wanted to retain control of even the one that they agreed to part with England. Perhaps that could have served as a place for growth of nutmeg. That's sort of too much of assumption but if done so, does strengthen.

[jnelson0612]

The given answer D should be wrong.
Here's why I think so:

The passage mentions:
the Dutch, inveterate traders, were more interested in the spice trade than in the mercantile value of New Amsterdam

>> It clearly says that Dutch were interested in spice trade and not in the value offered by Amsterdam in providing trading opportunities.

The option D 'New Amsterdam served as a trading center for furs exported to Europe.' doesn't strengthen because it talks about the trading value (mercentile) offered by Amsterdam. Doesn't even talk about spice trade.

However, option A 'Attempts to cultivate nutmeg trees outside of the Banda Islands had failed' does strengthen the argument in a way but again not thoroughly.
If one could not cultivate nutmeg outside of the islands, then they would have wanted to retain control of even the one that they agreed to part with England. Perhaps that could have served as a place for growth of nutmeg. That's sort of too much of assumption but if done so, does strengthen.

Be careful! The passage says that the Dutch were MORE interested in the spice trade than the other trading potential of New Amsterdam; it doesn't that they had no or little interest in other trade. Maybe they had extremely high interest in the spice trade and high interest in the fur trade. It also mentions that the Dutch were "inveterate traders", leading us to infer that they are interested in all types of trade, even though their interest may vary by the good being traded.

A is a *huge* stretch; that nutmeg could have been grown on New Amsterdam is pretty far out. The passage says that nutmeg was only grown in the Banda islands and that the spice was valuable enough to start wars, clearly indicating that it was difficult to grow elsewhere. If the Dutch could grow it on New Amsterdam (now the island of Manhattan) they could probably grow it in other cold weather locations, including their own country.

[RajaG516]

Commonplace items sometimes play surprising roles in world development. For example, though most people today associate nutmeg with simple baked goods, this common spice once altered the course of political 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 these nuts, from which the spice is made, ended up as a luxury item in the European market, via Venetian spice merchants. Eager to establish a monopoly over this valuable spice, the Dutch attacked the Bandas, subjugating the native people in a mostly successful attempt to control the nutmeg 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. At the time, the Dutch, inveterate traders, were more interested in the spice trade than in the mercantile value of New Amsterdam and so accepted the offer. 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.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the claim that New Amsterdam would have remained a Dutch possession if not for the conflict over nutmeg?

A) Attempts to cultivate nutmeg trees outside of the Banda Islands had failed.
B) Few people lived in New Amsterdam before it was ceded to the British.
C) The British controlled trade in other valuable spices, such as cloves.
D) New Amsterdam served as a trading center for furs exported to Europe.
E) The Netherlands controlled no North American territories other than New Amsterdam.

Can you please tell me why C is wrong ?

My understanding : here bristish have control over spice trade not only

[GiladB589]

I still can't understand why D is better than A?


A. Attempts to cultivate nutmeg trees outside of the Banda Islands had failed.
if there is no option to cultivate nutmeg outside the Banda Island, that will strengthen the conclusion the nutmeg was the only reason for the exchange of the Island with New Amsterdam. thus, without the nutmeg conflict there was no interest for the Dutch to make this exchange and they would keep New Amsterdam for themselves.

D. New Amsterdam served as a lucrative trading center for spices exportable to Europe.
gives a good reason why the Dutch had an interest to keep New Amsterdam. and strengthen just a little bit the argument, but its not sound enough to conclude that they would keep it, in the absence of the nutmeg conflict.
In addition,even without the lucrative trading center for spices, why they would like to give or exchange New Amsterdam without the nutmeg conflict?!

so,why is D better than A and what can be the best way to eliminate A?

thanx

[tacomania]

I have the same question as GiladB985. Could someone please clarify why D over A? FYI, the answer choices have changed slightly in the newest CAT, so reposting the question below.

A. Attempts to cultivate nutmeg trees outside of the Banda Islands had failed.
if there is no option to cultivate nutmeg outside the Banda Island, that will strengthen the conclusion that nutmeg was the only reason for the exchange of the Island with New Amsterdam. thus, without the nutmeg conflict there was no interest for the Dutch to make this exchange and they would keep New Amsterdam for themselves.

D. New Amsterdam served as a lucrative trading center for spices exportable to Europe.
gives a good reason why the Dutch had an interest to keep New Amsterdam. and strengthen just a little bit the argument, but its not sound enough to conclude that they would keep it, in the absence of the nutmeg conflict.
In addition,even without the lucrative trading center for spices, why they would like to give or exchange New Amsterdam without the nutmeg conflict?!

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.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the claim that New Amsterdam would have remained a Dutch possession if not for the conflict over nutmeg?
A. Attempts to cultivate nutmeg trees outside of the Banda Islands had failed.
B. Few people lived in New Amsterdam before it was ceded to the British.
C. The British controlled trade in other valuable spices, such as cloves.
D. New Amsterdam served as a lucrative trading center for spices exportable to Europe.
E. The Netherlands controlled no North American territories other than New Amsterdam.

[JbhB682]

I don't understand why D is better than A?


A. Attempts to cultivate nutmeg trees outside of the Banda Islands had failed.
if there is no option to cultivate nutmeg outside the Banda Island, that will strengthen the conclusion the nutmeg was the only reason for the exchange of the Island with New Amsterdam. thus, without the nutmeg conflict there was no interest for the Dutch to make this exchange and they would keep New Amsterdam for themselves.

D. New Amsterdam served as a lucrative trading center for spices exportable to Europe.
gives a good reason why the Dutch had an interest to keep New Amsterdam. and strengthen just a little bit the argument, but its not sound enough to conclude that they would keep it, in the absence of the nutmeg conflict.


so,why is D better than A and what can be the best way to eliminate A?

thanx

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

I think the difficulty of this problem comes from the complicated question: we're looking for something to strengthen the claim that 'New Amsterdam would have remained a Dutch possession if not for the conflict over nutmeg', that is to say, if there hadn't been a conflict over nutmeg, then the Dutch wouldn't have given up New Amsterdam. So we have to step away from the nutmeg conflict and ask "imagine that there wasn't a conflict over nutmeg, would the Dutch still want to keep New Amsterdam?" Now, we might think "if there was no conflict over nutmeg, then the Dutch wouldn't have a reason to give up New Amsterdam" and that's true. To some extent the claim is already supported by the statements in the passage. What's missing, however, is information about how much the Dutch actually cared about New Amsterdam. Perhaps they were willing to give it up so quickly, not because they valued the last Banda island so much, but because they didn't care much about New Amsterdam. That's what answer D touches on.

You often see this kind of conclusion in CR problems. I call it an 'if... conclusion'. Let me give you a simpler example. I might claim: 'If Roger takes up golf, then I think he'll become a pro within a year.' If we meet a year later and Roger hasn't taken up golf, then was my claim wrong? No, I could still be right. I only said he'll become a pro if he takes up golf. So, to evaluate this claim, you need to consider lots of things: Roger's skill, commitment, work ethic, opportunities, etc. But you don't need to worry about whether he'll actually take up golf - that's not something I'm making a claim about. Similarly with the above claim about the Dutch: focus on the second part of the sentence, not the 'if...' phrase.