1. The author suggests that according to historical demographers, the birth rate in early-modern German cities

We do not know whether the question is asking about >10000 inhabitants or <10000 inhabitants. Hence, answer will be a general one rather than specific.

A) was affected by sanitary conditions - opposite. death rate was affected by it
B) increased as a result of in-migration - out of scope. Population density increased by migration. Passage does not support that migrated people increased birth rate.
C) was lower than the annual death rate - Yes. can be inferred because the author discusses about the migration situation.
D) decreased as population density increased - out of scope. not discussed in the passage.
E) was lower than the rate in communities with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants - out of scope. There is no comparison stated.

Hence, C

2. Consider each of the choices separately and select all that apply.
It can be inferred that historical demographers generally believe which of the following about communities of fewer than 10,000 people in early-modern Germany?

We need to focus on only last line of the passage.

A) mortality rates were lower than those in cities of over 10,000 inhabitants. - Yes. Last line states this
B) in-migrations were not a significant factor in population trends. - I guess it is out of scope because last line states only about inhabitants <10000.
C) population levels remained quite stable for extended periods. - out of scope. not stated in passage

Hence, A

Wondering if the reasonings by tapas3016 for Q1-(E) and Q2-(A) are contradictory:

"E) was lower than the rate in communities with fewer than 10,000 inhabitants - out of scope. There is no comparison stated."

"A) mortality rates were lower than those in cities of over 10,000 inhabitants. - Yes. Last line states this"

Birth rates of city v. small town are out of scope for comparison. So are the mortality rates of city v. small town.

For question 2:
It can be inferred that historical demographers generally believe which of the following about communities of fewer than 10,000 people in early-modern Germany?


This is an inference question keep that in mind:
A:that the law of natural decrease did not apply to small towns. the law does not apply so the small towns don't experience the higher mortality rates which the cities experienced. TRUE
B: in-migration now remember that we have to infer we cannot directly classify this as out of scope.
We can infer from this that the law of natural decrease did not apply to small towns that the law doesn't apply to the small towns. And the law is only mentioned in the first point not in the second and the second mentions the in-migration so here we can't say for sure if it is true.
C: annual number of births usually equaled or exceeded that of deaths, the population is increasing slowly and not stable.

Thanks a lot for the comment.

Yet I still find the reasoning far-fetched. Here I try to apply a “textualistic” reading of this passage, without assuming any so-called right answers. In case I missed some pieces in my reasoning, any comment would be much appreciated.

Passage:
① Historical demographers have generally agreed on two interrelated features of the urban populations in early-modern Germany.

② First in accordance with the law of natural decrease, extremely high mortality rates in cities (urban areas with more than10.000 inhabitants) meant that their populations could not be sustained by reproduction alone.
==> city mortality rate > city birth rate <==> law of natural decrease (of population), thus "their populations could not be sustained by reproduction alone."

③ Population density, inadequate sanitary conditions, and poor housing made cities too vulnerable to disease and death.
==> city mortality rate causes.

④ Second, when city populations did increase, it was as a result of in-migration sufficient to overcome the population losses caused by the high mortality.
==> city birth rate + in-migration - city mortality = city population net increase, thus "in-migration sufficient to overcome the population losses" shown in ②.

⑤ But because the parish registers of urban communities with fewer than 10.000 inhabitants show that the annual number of births usually equaled or exceeded that of deaths, historical demographers assume that the law of natural decrease did not apply to small towns.
==>
(1) small town birth >= small town death <==> small town birth - small town death = small town population net increase / no change <==> law of natural decrease does not apply.
(2) NO such comparisons yet: small town birth/death rate vs. city birth/death rate, i.e., nothing has been said whether the small town mortality rate is absolutely high or relatively higher.
(3) No need for in-migration, albeit not mentioned in ⑤, to make population increase for small towns, thus Q2-B) is out of scope, at best.
(4) Q2-C) is one of the two scenarios (net increase or stable), thus False.

Here is an example best illustrating my wondering:
(1) City A population 10000. Birth rate 0.1 and mortality rate 0.2, with in-migration 2000 => net annual increase of city population by 1000.
(2) A small town B with population 1000. Birth rate 0.4 and mortality 0.3 => net annual increase of small town population by 100.

My first reading of the passage revealed itself as a typical GRE Comparative Question in Quant Section: Be careful about making comparative judgements w.r.t. absolute numbers and ratios when no such comparison info is explicitly given.
Here for this passage whether there are "correct" answers or not is less important though. What puzzles me is the reasonings adopted to reach an answer.

Hello from the GRE Prep Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GRE Prep Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.