Question

in the moghul mughal empire the core contradiction had always been hindus versus muslims. akbar the great had worked out a sort of accommodation, but his great-grandson aurangzeb reversed all his policies, enforcing orthodox islam rigidly, restoring discrimination against hindus, squashing smaller religions groups such as the sikhs, and generally replacing tolerance with repression. and yet, say what you will about the man’s narrow - minded zealotry fanaticism, aurangzeb was a titanic talent, so he not only held his empire together but extended it. the whole time, however, he was sowing the discord division and tension that would erupt to ruin the empire as soon as a less capable ruler took charge....

this glimpse into the ottoman social clockwork does not begin to exhaust its fractal intricacy complexity: look closer and deeper into ottoman society and you’ll see the same order of complexity at every level. everything was connected to everything else and connected in many ways, which was fine when all the connections balanced out and all of the parts were working. centuries later, when the empire entered its decrepitude decaying state, all the intertwining parts and intermeshing connecting institutions became a peculiarly ottoman liability: their intricacy meant that trouble in one place or sphere translated mysteriously to trouble in a dozen other places or spheres—but that came later. in the sixteenth century, the ottoman empire was an awesomely well - functioning machine....

source: tamim ansary, destiny disrupted: a history of the world through islamic eyes, public affairs

22 based on these passages, what is a primary similarity between the mughal and ottoman empires?
(1) social conflict did not exist in either empire.
(2) each empire experienced a period of success.
(3) each empire lasted less than a century.
(4) hinduism had little influence in the development of either empire.

23 which statement best explains a reason the mughal empire declined and a reason the ottoman empire declined?
(1) mughal leaders were ineffective; ottoman society was too interconnected.
(2) mughal society was too secular; policies of ottoman sultans were inconsistent.
(3) religious diversity in the mughal empire was lacking; the ottoman empire never worked efficiently.
(4) mughal society paid little attention to the government; ottoman social groups were too isolated.

Explanation:

Question 22

• Option 1: The Mughal had Hindu - Muslim conflict, Ottoman had social complexity (implying conflict potential), so social conflict existed. Eliminate.
• Option 2: Mughal under Aurangzeb extended the empire (success), Ottoman in 16th century was a well - functioning machine (success). This fits.
• Option 3: Mughal and Ottoman empires lasted for centuries, not less than a century. Eliminate.
• Option 4: Hinduism was influential in Mughal (Hindu - Muslim conflict), so this is wrong. Eliminate.

• Option 1: Mughal declined when a less capable ruler took over (ineffective leaders), Ottoman declined because its interconnected society made trouble spread (too interconnected). This matches the passages.
• Option 2: Mughal under Aurangzeb was not secular (enforced orthodox Islam), Ottoman in 16th century was well - functioning (sultans' policies were consistent then). Eliminate.
• Option 3: Mughal had religious diversity (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs), Ottoman in 16th century was well - functioning (worked efficiently). Eliminate.
• Option 4: Mughal government was active (Aurangzeb ruled firmly), Ottoman society was interconnected (not isolated). Eliminate.

Answer:

1. Each empire experienced a period of success.

Question 23