Explanation

1) All 3 answers are correct. The serfs could not leave the household, could not pay for passport and they must done certain jobs

2) A and B are the correct answers
_________________

For completeness sake:

Highlighted sentence is "If serfs...estate". @Carcass
_________________

Done.

Thank you so much

Regards
_________________

For additional support for 2:

The reason why the author wrote If serfs could pay for passports, they were usually granted permission to leave the estate was because he needed to support Melton's idea that serfs could get around landlord's rules and regulations.

This, of course, was a response to something earlier, as evidenced by "Melton, however...".

What was this a response to? Well, the conventional view mentioned in the first sentence.

So, our correct answers are A and B.
_________________

Can you explain why Option A in question 1.

From this, you could infer that serfs had to do certain duties but \(IF\) they could have the resources, then they were free to move or else.

As such, IF you do not take into account that "IF" the had duties. Is the other way around. So A is correct.

Hope this helps.

Regards
_________________

2nd question, why option a is correct?

Melton, however, argues that serfdom was perfectly compatible with economic growth, because many Russian serfs were able to get around landlords' rules and regulations. If serfs could pay for passports, they were usually granted permission to leave the estate. If they could pay the fine, they could establish a separate household; and if they had the resources, they could hire laborers to cultivate the communal lands, while they themselves engaged in trade or worked as migrant laborers in cities.

From the IF in the passage, we do know that the red sentence supports what we said before

IF is an important signal word in the RC passages

Regards
_________________

There are lots of "could"

1. It can be inferred from the passage that the "rules and regulations" affecting serfdom in Russia involved

❑ responsibility for the work needed to accomplish certain defined tasks - since they are able to get around landlord's rules and regulations, then serfs were given responsibilities to complete the defined tasks.
❑ restrictions on freedom of movement - Yes, If they could pay, then they are allowed to leave. This means that they do not have any money. Hence, restricted.
❑ limitations on the ability to set up an independent household - same as above.

2. The highlighted sentence has which of the following functions in the passage?

❑ It provides support for an argument presented in the preceding sentence. - Yes "rules and regulations"
❑ It provides evidence that helps undermine a view introduced in the first sentence. - Yes, Conventional view stated that serfs inhibited (stop or hinders) growth. This states otherwise.
❑ It raises a question that the succeeding sentence will resolve. - There is not U turn made in the succeeding sentence.

for question 2 why is option A correct? not fully understanding the above explanations....what is the argument in the preceding sentence? Does it imply that if serfs could pay for passports they would be able to get around the rules and regulations?

Hey,

We have this from the para :

Serfdom was perfectly compatible with economic growth, because many Russian serfs were able to get around landlords' rules and regulations. If serfs could pay for passports, they were usually granted permission to leave the estate.

Basically the para means that the serfs were required to do particular duties but if they have money then they were able to get around the rules.
How? - It is mentioned in the highlighted one.

That if they can pay for passport then they were granted permission to leave.

So the highlighted sentence provides a support for the statement : 'Serfdom was perfectly compatible with economic growth, because many Russian serfs were able to get around landlords' rules and regulations.'

Hope this clears your doubt. Please ask if not.

Regards

_________________