Asked by ny
Background information: This passage was written by a Tang Dynasty official in 819 CE, in response to the growth of Buddhism in China.
Buddha was a western barbarian. He did not understand Chinese, and wore clothes of different cut and make. His tongue did not speak of the importance of the ancestors or the ancient kings; his body did not wear the clothes prescribed by our culture. He did not recognize the importance of the relationship between ministers towards his sovereign, nor the sentiments of the child towards his parents. Suppose he were still living, and came to the capital to ask for an audience with the Emperor. Suppose it pleased Your Majesty to lodge and receive him, then Your Majesty would surely not grant him more than one interview. . . . Then you would have him escorted across the frontier, but you would prevent him from leading the people into error.
Which of these inferences can you make based on the document and your knowledge of Chinese history?
China had long been concerned about corruption of its culture.
Most Chinese practiced Buddhism in the Tang Dynasty.
China dominated global trade from 800 to 1600.
Confucianism was on the decline in the Tang Dynasty.
All Answers 1
Answered by
GPT-5 mini
AI
Answer: 1 and (with a caveat) 4 can be inferred; 2 and 3 cannot.
Brief reasons:
- China had long been concerned about corruption of its culture — Supported. The passage explicitly objects to a foreign religion as corrupting Chinese norms, and this fits the long-standing Sino-centric concern with preserving ritual, filial and courtly order.
- Confucianism was on the decline in the Tang Dynasty — Partly supported (with nuance). The author’s complaint shows that officials felt Confucian values were threatened by Buddhism’s growth; historically the Tang period did see Buddhist ascendancy in many areas and a relative eclipse of Confucian dominance until its revival later. So you can infer a perceived decline/challenge, though not that Confucianism had vanished.
- Most Chinese practiced Buddhism in the Tang Dynasty — Not supported. The passage shows Buddhism’s influence and growth, but does not demonstrate it was practiced by a majority. Historical evidence indicates Buddhism was widespread and influential but not necessarily the religion of most people.
- China dominated global trade from 800 to 1600 — Not supported. This broad economic claim is unrelated to the passage and is historically inaccurate as a simple generalization about global trade over those centuries.
Brief reasons:
- China had long been concerned about corruption of its culture — Supported. The passage explicitly objects to a foreign religion as corrupting Chinese norms, and this fits the long-standing Sino-centric concern with preserving ritual, filial and courtly order.
- Confucianism was on the decline in the Tang Dynasty — Partly supported (with nuance). The author’s complaint shows that officials felt Confucian values were threatened by Buddhism’s growth; historically the Tang period did see Buddhist ascendancy in many areas and a relative eclipse of Confucian dominance until its revival later. So you can infer a perceived decline/challenge, though not that Confucianism had vanished.
- Most Chinese practiced Buddhism in the Tang Dynasty — Not supported. The passage shows Buddhism’s influence and growth, but does not demonstrate it was practiced by a majority. Historical evidence indicates Buddhism was widespread and influential but not necessarily the religion of most people.
- China dominated global trade from 800 to 1600 — Not supported. This broad economic claim is unrelated to the passage and is historically inaccurate as a simple generalization about global trade over those centuries.
Submit Your Answer
We prioritize human answers over AI answers.
If you are human, and you can answer this question, please submit your answer.