SAT Reading - Khan Diagnostic Quiz level 3 - reading 19

Questions 1-11 are based on the following
passage.


This passage is excerpted from Federalist Paper No. 5, published in 1787. In it, statesman John Jay discusses the potential effects of dividing the U.S. into several different nations.




The history of Great Britain is the one with which we are

in general the best acquainted, and it gives us many useful

lessons. We may profit by their experience without paying the
price which it cost them. Although it seems obvious to
5 common sense that the people of such an island should be but

one nation, yet we find that they were for ages divided into

three, and that those three were almost constantly embroiled

in quarrels and wars with one another. Notwithstanding their

true interest with respect to the continental nations was really
10 the same, yet by the arts and policy and practices of those

nations, their mutual jealousies were perpetually kept

inflamed, and for a long series of years they were far more

inconvenient and troublesome than they were useful and

assisting to each other.
15 Should the people of America divide themselves into three

or four nations, would not the same thing happen? Would not

similar jealousies arise, and be in like manner cherished?

Instead of their being "joined in affection" and "free from all

apprehension of different interests," envy and jealousy would
20 soon extinguish confidence and affection, and the partial

interests of each confederacy, instead of the general interests

of all America, would be the only objects of their policy and

pursuits. Hence, like most other bordering nations, they

would always be either involved in disputes and war, or live
25 in the constant apprehension of them.
The most sanguine advocates for three or four

confederacies cannot reasonably suppose that they would

long remain exactly on an equal footing in point of strength,

even if it was possible to form them so at first; but, admitting
30 that to be practicable, yet what human contrivance can secure

the continuance of such equality? Independent of those local

circumstances which tend to beget and increase power in one

part and to impede its progress in another, we must advert to

the effects of that superior policy and good management
35 which would probably distinguish the government of one

above the rest, and by which their relative equality in

strength and consideration would be destroyed. For it cannot

be presumed that the same degree of sound policy, prudence,

and foresight would uniformly be observed by each of these
40 confederacies for a long succession of years.
Whenever, and from whatever causes, it might happen,

and happen it would, that any one of these nations or

confederacies should rise on the scale of political importance

much above the degree of her neighbors, that moment would
45 those neighbors behold her with envy and with fear. Both

those passions would lead them to countenance, if not to

promote, whatever might promise to diminish her

importance; and would also restrain them from measures

calculated to advance or even to secure her prosperity. Much
50 time would not be necessary to enable her to discern these

unfriendly dispositions. She would soon begin, not only to

lose confidence in her neighbors, but also to feel a disposition

equally unfavorable to them. Distrust naturally creates

distrust, and by nothing is good-will and kind conduct more
55 speedily changed than by invidious jealousies and uncandid

imputations, whether expressed or implied.
The North is generally the region of strength, and many

local circumstances render it probable that the most Northern

of the proposed confederacies would, at a period not very
60 distant, be unquestionably more formidable than any of the

others. No sooner would this become evident than the

Northern Hive would excite the same ideas and sensations in

the more southern parts of America which it formerly did in

the southern parts of Europe. Nor does it appear to be a rash
65 conjecture that its young swarms might often be tempted to

gather honey in the more blooming fields and milder air of

their luxurious and more delicate neighbors.
They who well consider the history of similar divisions

and confederacies will find abundant reason to apprehend
70 that those in contemplation would in no other sense be

neighbors than as they would be borderers; that they would

neither love nor trust one another, but on the contrary would

be a prey to discord, jealousy, and mutual injuries; in short,

that they would place us exactly in the situations in which

75 some nations doubtless wish to see us, viz., formidable only

to each other.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
Question 1 The author’s central claim in the passage is that