Read the paragraph from history of the united states, by charles and mary beard. in the second place, the reception accorded the newcomers differed from that given to the immigrants in the early days. by 1890, all the free land was gone. they could not, therefore, be dispersed widely among the native americans to assimilate quickly and unconsciously the habits and ideas of american life. on the contrary, they were diverted mainly to the industrial centers. there they crowded . . into colonies of their own, where they preserved their languages, their newspapers, and their old-world customs and views. which of the following best summarizes this biased paragraph objectively? a the new immigrants met different conditions when they arrived. because most found work in factories, they tended to settle in cities, where they lived in crowded neighborhoods with others from their home countries. b it was a shame that these new immigrants did not move to

As things now stand, the course of instruction in American history in our public schools embraces three distinct treatments of the subject. Three separate books are used. First, there is the primary book, which is usually a very condensed narrative with emphasis on biographies and anecdotes. Second, there is the advanced text for the seventh or eighth grade, generally speaking, an expansion of the elementary book by the addition of forty or fifty thousand words. Finally, there is the high school manual. This, too, ordinarily follows the beaten path, giving fuller accounts of the same events and characters. To put it bluntly, we do not assume that our children obtain permanent possessions from their study of history in the lower grades. If mathematicians followed the same method, high school texts on algebra and geometry would include the multiplication table and fractions.

There is, of course, a ready answer to the criticism advanced above. It is that teachers have learned from bitter experience how little history their pupils retain as they pass along the regular route. No teacher of history will deny this. Still it is a standing challenge to existing methods of historical instruction. If the study of history cannot be made truly progressive like the study of mathematics, science, and languages, then the historians assume a grave responsibility in adding their subject to the already overloaded curriculum. If the successive historical texts are only enlarged editions of the first text—more facts, more dates, more words—then history deserves most of the sharp criticism which it is receiving from teachers of science, civics, and economics.

In this condition of affairs we find our justification for offering a new high school text in American history. Our first contribution is one of omission. The time-honored stories of exploration and the biographies of heroes are left out. We frankly hold that, if pupils know little or nothing about Columbus, Cortes, Magellan, or Captain John Smith by the time they reach the high school, it is useless to tell the same stories for perhaps the fourth time. It is worse than useless. It is an offense against the teachers of those subjects that are demonstrated to be progressive in character.

In the next place we have omitted all descriptions of battles. Our reasons for this are simple. The strategy of a campaign or of a single battle is a highly technical, and usually a highly controversial, matter about which experts differ widely. In the field of military and naval operations most writers and teachers of history are mere novices. To dispose of Gettysburg or the Wilderness in ten lines or ten pages is equally absurd to the serious student of military affairs. Any one who compares the ordinary textbook account of a single Civil War campaign with the account given by Ropes, for instance, will ask for no further comment. No youth called upon to serve our country in arms would think of turning to a high school manual for information about the art of warfare. The dramatic scene or episode, so useful in arousing the interest of the immature pupil, seems out of place in a book that deliberately appeals to boys and girls on the very threshold of life's serious responsibilities.

This question is incomplete, here´s the complete question.  

Read the paragraph from History of the United States, by Charles and Mary Beard.

In the second place, the reception accorded the newcomers differed from that given to the immigrants in the early days. By 1890, all the free land was gone. They could not, therefore, be dispersed widely among the native Americans to assimilate quickly and unconsciously the habits and ideas of American life. On the contrary, they were diverted mainly to the industrial centers. There they crowded . . . into colonies of their own, where they preserved their languages, their newspapers, and their old-world customs and views.

Which of the following best summarizes this biased paragraph objectively?

A. The new immigrants met different conditions when they arrived. Because most found work in factories, they tended to settle in cities, where they lived in crowded neighborhoods with others from their home countries.

B. It was a shame that these new immigrants did not move to farms. Instead, they formed ethnic neighborhoods in cities so that they could keep their old-world languages, traditions, and beliefs.

C. Because the new immigrants could not acquire free land, they were unable to assimilate into a newer and better way of American life.

D. I think it was sad that the new immigrants were unable to assimilate into American life. They were forced to live in crowded conditions.

A. The new immigrants met different conditions when they arrived. Because most found work in factories, they tended to settle in cities, where they lived in crowded neighborhoods with others from their home countries.

Explanation:

History of the United States was the culmination of lifelong research of American history by Charles Beard and his wife, Mary R. Beard.

Only option A takes away the biased perspective to provide an objective description of the immigrant´s situation.

The original text is biased because it uses phrases that imply the authors' own opinions on the matter, such as "be dispersed widely" and "to assimilate quickly and unconsciously".

its true: ) hope this

in 'popular history' of europe in america it's common to blame the rise of the nazis (and of coursewwii, too) mainly on the treaty of versailles. despite the harshness of the treaty and despite the inflation of 1919-23 germany did benefit from the economic buoyancy of the roaring twenties. in the general election in 1928, the nazis only managed to get 12 (out of about 584) seats in the reichstag. the nazis were widely seen as a laughing-stock led by a funny little man given to yelling and wild gesticulation. of all european countries, none was hit harder than germany by the stockmarket crash of october 1929. germany had borrowed very large sums from american banks, with much of the money repayable either on demand or at short notice. these loans were of course recalled, and bankruptcies in germany rose sharply from the start of 1930 (or earlier). unemployment rose sharply, too. the german constitution of 1919 contained much that was utopian, including the right to paid employment. the realities of the situation made a mockery of the weimar constitution. one of german's great weaknesses at the time was the lack of a broadly based, popular right-wing party comparable to, say, the republicans in the us or the conservatives in britain. the obvious candidate, the german nationalists (the dnvp), had lost its grip and was hopelessly out oftouch with many of its supporters especially in rural areas. germany became increasingly hard to govern.

from about the middle of 1930 onwards the new chancellor, br�ning, had to govern by decree. in the absence of mainstream right-wing party, the nazis - who ruthlessly exploited genuine grievances - suddenly became the largest single party in the reichstag. with the growing effects of the great depression, unemployment reached about 27% (or more) in 1932. acting on bad advice (from the dnvp) hindenburg dismissed brüning in july 1932. in the general election that followed, the nazis won 37% of the seats. the other party that did well was the communist party (kpd) with 14%. fresh elections were held in november 1932: the nazi vote fell slightly, but the communist vote rose to 17%. in the streets of berlin and other major cities violence between left and right and their paramilitary wings grew. by late 1932, the effects of the great depression in germany had passed their peak, but this wasn't obvious at the time. the steady rise in communist vote triggered panic among most of the mainstream parties. after trying various solutions to the political crisis, hindenburg again took very bad advice - again from the dnvp. on the basis of this advice, he appointed hitler reichs chancellor on 30 january 1933 who promised to form a coalition with the german nationalists (dnvp). he did so, but at the same time almost immediately unleashed the sa (stormtroopers) who started a reign of terror within two months germany became a dictatorship, complete with concentration camps. joncey

explanation: