Huns and eurasian history
- Dashboard
- Huns and eurasian history
Most Recent Score Report
| Questions Correct | Questions Answered | Time Spent | Status | Attempt Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Previous Score Reports
| Questions Correct | Questions Answered | Time Spent | Status | Attempt Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
Huns and eurasian history
Array
(
[passage] => WP_Post Object
(
[ID] => 559772
[post_author] => 12815
[post_date] => 2025-01-03 12:24:09
[post_date_gmt] => 2025-01-03 17:24:09
[post_content] => Practice Passage (Question 1-6)
*This passage is the property of Khan Academy and has been reformatted into an AAMC-style interface in their entirety by MedLife Mastery. MedLife Mastery does not endorse and is not an affiliate of Khan Academy.
The greatest territorial expansion and the greatest power of the Hun Empire in the West was when the centre of their activities reached Pannonia under the leadership of Attila. Greek and Latin sources indicate that Attila was of royal lineage, a line which for generations had ruled the Huns. Attila was a great statesman who did great deeds. He was a wise ruler, a skilled diplomat, and a fair judge. With good reason he should be considered a prominent figure in the first millennium AD. The Hun land under Attila’s control consisted of four areas; the northern border of the kingdom stretched from the Hun’s homeland to the west of Germany. In the south, both Roman Empires (the Eastern Roman and the Western Roman Empire) were paying tribute to Attila. In terms of its territory and influence, Attila’s empire covered geographically almost all the four corners of the known world, from east to west and from north to south. The Hun territory ran from east to west - from Altai, Central Asia and the Caucasus to the Danube and the Rhine. The Hun’s Union in Central Asia contributed to the later emergence of the Kazakh nation and other Turkic peoples. By accumulating and concentrating power, the Hun ruler organized an invasion of Western Europe, in order to expand the territory of his state. And so the Catalaunian Fields in Champagne (Gaul) became the place for the decisive (major) battle. Parisians were frightened of Attila’s cruelty and anger, so they decided to send women and children and some belongings to a safe place. There St. Genovea turned up and she resolved to persuade women not to leave the city, in which they had been born and grown up, in the hour of danger and, moreover, to prepare themselves and their men to the defense. St. Genovea told the women to ask God for help and salvation. They listened to Genovea and decided to stay in the city and rely on God’s mercy.
In the evaluation of the largest battle, a number of Western history scholars, both modern and contemporary, drew on information from the chroniclers of the early Middle Ages, and used them uncritically. The objective evaluation of historical reality is always difficult. A Belgian historian - Pirenn concluded that Attila, getting through the Rhine in the spring of 451 AD, devastated everything up to the Loire. Aetius stopped him with the help of the Germans near Troyes. The Franks, Burgundians and Visigoths and others were good allies. The military art of the Romans and German bravery decided everything here. Attila's death in 453 AD resulted in the collapse of Hun power, and thereby saved the West. In our opinion, the situation in Gaul can be explained by the over-large scale of Attila’s campaigns and the inability to restrain dozens of tribes and entities that were not related to the Huns socially and ethnically within the vast territory under the unified leadership. But let us return to the momentous meeting of 452 AD. In the spring of 453 AD, the ruler of the Hun Empire, Attila, died.
[post_title] => Huns and eurasian history
[post_excerpt] =>
[post_status] => publish
[comment_status] => closed
[ping_status] => closed
[post_password] =>
[post_name] => huns-and-eurasian-history
[to_ping] =>
[pinged] =>
[post_modified] => 2025-01-03 12:24:09
[post_modified_gmt] => 2025-01-03 17:24:09
[post_content_filtered] =>
[post_parent] => 0
[guid] => https://medlifemastery.com/?post_type=passage&p=559772
[menu_order] => 0
[post_type] => passage
[post_mime_type] =>
[comment_count] => 0
[filter] => raw
)
[questions] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 578908434
[question] => The author mentions tributes paid to Attila by the Romans in order to support which of the following claims about the Huns? The Huns:
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 2
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Reasoning Within the Text” question. These items generally ask you to think about the author’s reasoning, such as what claim an author is trying to support with a piece of evidence, what assumption underlies a specific statement, or whether an argument is flawed.
The passage does not discuss economic issues or imply that the Huns had a sophisticated banking system (option 1). The author’s mentioning that both Roman empires were paying tribute was in order to illustrate the empire’s “territory and influence” (option 2). Although the author mentions that Parisians were frightened of Attila (option 4), the tributes are not provided by the author as evidence for that point.. Although the author later mentions the Huns inability to control dozens of tribes under the unified leadership (option 3), this is referring to the reason for the failed invasion at Gaul and not relation to the tributes.
Option 2 is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. created a very sophisticated banking system.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. had a vast sphere of influence and political power.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. were unable to create a single, unified nation-state.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. were feared and respected.
)
)
)
[1] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 3873426850
[question] => Information in the passage MOST STRONGLY suggests that one scholarly disagreement about the Huns might entail:
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 1
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Foundations of Comprehension” question which is asking you to recognize an accurate paraphrase or summary of the central theme or of particular statements in the passage, or to interpret word choices made by the author.
The passage gives alternative explanations for why the Huns lost at Champagne (option 1). The author cites Pirenn who claims that “the military art of the Romans and German bravery decided everything” in the battle at Gaul. The author then goes on to subscribe to the alternate point of view that failure to win in the West was due to Attila’s over-large scale campaigns, and social and ethnic divisions (paragraph 2). There is no mention of Eurasian diet or religion (option 2). While the nature of the emergence of the Kazakh and Turkic peoples or the cause of Attila’s death may or may not be subject to historical debate, the author does not imply the existence of a scholarly debate by presenting alternative points of view on the subjects (options 3 and 4).
Option 1 is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. The factors that led to the Huns failing to conquer Western Europe.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. The influence Eurasian diet and religion on Hunnic culture.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. The emergence of the Kazakh nation and other Turkic peoples.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. The actual cause of Attila’s death in 453 AD.
)
)
)
[2] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 83407773
[question] => Which of the following statements BEST expresses the passage author’s main message?
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 2
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Foundations of Comprehension” question which is asking you to recognize an accurate paraphrase or summary of the central theme or of particular statements in the passage, or to interpret word choices made by the author.
The author briefly mentions that the empire was ethnically and religiously diverse in paragraph 2 only to suggest one possible cause of its failure to take West Europe (option 1). While paragraph 2 explains that many people feared Attila (option 3), and that Attila’s forces were unsuccessful at Champagne (option 4), those points are not the author’s main message. The author spends a significant amount of time describing the impressive geographic reach of the Hunnic Empire in paragraph 2, and closes the passage by suggesting that Attila’s death was a lucky turn of events for the West, suggesting how close he was to succeeding (option 2).
Option 2 is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. The Hunnic Empire was complex and ethnically diverse.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. Attila led a powerful empire and came close to conquering Western Europe.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. Attila was greatly feared throughout the West.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. The Huns employed ultimately unsuccessful military tactics.
)
)
)
[3] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 872728905
[question] => Which of the following new pieces of evidence would weaken Pirenn’s explanations for the Hun defeat at Gaul?
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 4
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Reasoning Beyond the Text” question, which means that it wants you to either apply or extrapolate the ideas in the passage to new situations or to assess how new information would impact the ideas presented in the passage. It is important to understand the assumptions underlying the article, and how new information may or may not shift the central thesis.
Pirenn’s explanation centers upon Attila devastating everything in his path up until the Loire, and then only being stopped there by the military art of the Romans and German bravery which “decided everything”. If the Germans were not considered brave, then this would undermine this explanation. Also, if the Hun’s were already weakened before facing the Romans and Germans at the Loire (option 2), then this would suggest those were not the only factors. The issue of the scale of the campaign being too large (option 3) is part of the passage author’s alternative account and not part of Pirenn’s explanation.
Option 4 is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. The Germans were generally regarded as cowards.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. The Hun army was greatly weakened by the time they reached the Loire.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. Attila’s campaign was smaller in scale than previously thought.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. Both A and B
)
)
)
[4] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 3143847772
[question] => Which of the following passage assertions is presented as evidence that Attila should be considered a prominent historical figure?
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 4
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Reasoning Within the Text” question. These items generally ask you to think about the author’s reasoning, such as what claim an author is trying to support with a piece of evidence, what assumption underlies a specific statement, or whether an argument is flawed.
In the opening first paragraph, the author writes that Attila should be regarded as “a prominent figure” because “the greatest territorial expansion and the greatest power of the Hun Empire in the West was…under the leadership of Attila” (option 4). While royal lineage is an attribute that might be associated with Attila’s high status (option 3), the fact that he was a prominent historical figure is based on his accomplishments. The fact that Parisians were frightened of Attila’s cruelty and anger may have served him well in some respects, but it is not presented as evidence of his prominence (option 1). Attila’s invasion of Gaul was a failure, so his choice to attempt it does not in itself speak to his prominence (option 2).
Option 4 is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. Parisians were frightened of Attila’s cruelty and anger.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. Attila invaded Gaul.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. Attila was of a royal lineage.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. The greatest territorial expansion of the Hun Empire was under the leadership of Attila.
)
)
)
[5] => Array
(
[quiz_unique_key] => 3143847772
[question] => Which of the following statements does the author NOT imply about Attila?
[value] => Array
(
[answer] => 4
[description] => Reason for the Correct Answer:
This is a “Foundations of Comprehension” question which is asking you to recognize an accurate paraphrase or summary of the central theme or of particular statements in the passage, or to interpret word choices made by the author.
There are sentences in the passage that support options A, B, and C. In paragraph 1, the author writes, “The Hun land under Attila’s control consisted of four areas” (option 1), and “Parisians were frightened of Attila’s cruelty and anger, so they decided to send women and children and some belongings to a safe place” (option 2). In paragraph 1, the author also writes, “Greek and Latin sources indicate that Attila was of royal lineage” (option 3). Although the passage talks about the Parisians who Attila was trying to conquer fearing his cruelty, there is no suggestion that he was cruel to his own people (option 4).
Option 4 is correct.
)
[answers] => Array
(
[0] => Array
(
[each_answer] => A. The Hun land under Attila’s control consisted of four areas.
)
[1] => Array
(
[each_answer] => B. There were people who were frightened of Attila’s cruelty and anger.
)
[2] => Array
(
[each_answer] => C. There are multiple sources that indicate that Attila was of royal lineage.
)
[3] => Array
(
[each_answer] => D. Attila was often cruel to his own people.
)
)
)
)
[total_question] => 6
[correct_answers] => Array
(
[559772|1] => B
[559772|2] => A
[559772|3] => B
[559772|4] => D
[559772|5] => D
[559772|6] => D
)
[hide_display_feedback_settings] =>
[hide_solutions] =>
)