This passage says the objection that extending the US school year would violate a nineteenth century tradition misses the mark. The passage goes on to acknowledge the historical practice of closing US schools for three months each summer, but the author notes that this was because children needed to harvest to support the economy. Therefore, the passage says that if the tradition justifies any policy, it would be determining the length of the school year based on economic needs. We are asked to identify how this argument counters the objection that extending the US school year would violate a nineteenth century tradition.
(B) "calling into question the relevance of information about historical practices to current disputes about proposed social change" This is incorrect because the passage does not imply that the information about historical practices is irrelevant. In fact, the passage explains and acknowledges the historical practices. Instead, the passage calls into question what the historical practices mean and how they should be applied. In other words, it uses the relevant information about historical practices to bring to light a different policy it would justify.
(C) "arguing for an alternative understanding of the nature of the United States tradition regarding the length of the school year" This is correct because the passage discusses the historical practices in order to explain how they could justify the policy of determining school year length by economic need rather than the policy of keeping the school year length the same. In other words, the author uses the historical perspective to show how its meaning can be applied differently.
Does that make sense? Hope it helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions!
