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".

it would have concentrated power in the executive branch of the government. it would have restored balance among the three branches of government. it would have set a precedent for government intervention in the economy. it would have signaled an end to all the programs of roosevelt’s new deal.

did this .

1775 is your answer hope this