Could someone explain this question? Thank you so much!
RaviJanuary 26, 2019
@Shiyi-Zhang,
Happy to help. We're looking for something that can be inferred from the contents of the passage about English kings prior to the early seventeenth century.
The key part of the text to consider is the third paragraph, which runs from lines 25 through 39. What's happening in this part of the text?
Starting from the early 17th century, power had shifted away from the king and to the parliament. So when comparing a king from the 16th century to a king after the early 17th century (say, the 18th century), the earlier king was way more powerful.
Additionally, when looking at the parliament's power, the parliament had way more power after the early 17th century than it did before because of the shift in laws.
Now that we have a grasp of what was going on with kings around this time, let's look at the answers.
(A) is incorrect because we can't infer the parliament didn't make any laws before the early seventeenth century.
(B) is incorrect because we can't infer that kings frequently flouted laws made by the parliament.
(C) is correct because it says their power relative to that of parliament was considerably greater than it was in the 18th century. This is exactly what our analysis of the third paragraph was, and it's the correct answer. This is the implication of lines 25 through 39—the kings had less power after the early 17th century.
(D) is incorrect because we have no idea whether or not kings before the early 17th century were more often the sources of legal reform than they were in the 18th century.
(E) is incorrect because we can't infer that kings had to combat those who believed that the power of the parliament was absolute. While this sounds like it could be true, nothing in the passage or paragraph 3 suggests this as an implication.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!
