Monarchy, a stable form of government for many centuries, came under greater and greater social pressure in the 18th and 19th centuries, in particular in Europe and in North America. In many countries, the end result was a complete change of regime.
Which of the following conclusions is most strongly supported by the information above?
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]It makes no difference that this answer choice is historically correct. It is a new premise, which is not an acceptable answer in inference questions. Remember, we are looking for a conclusion, not a premise.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]We are told of only one reason for the regime changes: social pressure (Premise B). To conclude that there were many reasons is, therefore, a leap. Remember, we are looking for a small step forward.
Quite right, your highness!
[[snippet]]Since some of the monarchies in the beginning of the 18th century weren't monarchies by the beginning of the 20th century, you were more likely to be living in a monarchy during the former rather than during the latter.
Note that this answer choice does rely on a certain unwritten assumption that the socio-political situation in the other parts of the world, outside Europe, is either unchanged, or reflects the same de-monarchizing trend that occurred in Europe. In this sense, answer choice E is less than perfect, but remember that in the GMAT it is frequently necessary to opt for the best answer choice among the five given, not the perfect answer choice.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]We are told nothing of democracy as a form of government, so to infer anything having to do with democracy would require a leap, whereas we are looking for a small step.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]We are indeed told that there were many regime changes(Premise C). However, many doesn't mean most. To infer that would be a leap, whereas we are looking to make a small step.