Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
17 Jul 2021, 05:39
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi,
Self introduction - a long time lurker, a first time poster.
Q3 has placed me in a very uncomfortable position. I usually get the answers right for both RC and CR, but I am missing something here in this particular question.
Q3 is a strengthen question and refers to authors 'explanation' explicitly in QS.
Again, passage explicitly states 'the laws explain'... OK, so far so good.
Now the divergence: Option-C says 'some'. OK, 'some' means at least 1, yeah maybe 2, but definitely not 'many' or even 'several'. Not convinced. Doesn't have the objectivity of scale.
Option-E: 'most' - great! Hispanic men - OK, if we consider between Hispanic Vs rest. So California belongs to Hispanic people, awesome.
Now, I connect this piece with QS 'explains', and passage 'explains' - which refers to 'the law'. And what does the law states - that women will eventually inherit the property! I mean, as I guy, if I know that even if currently the property belongs to a girl's father (Hispanic men) but there is a law that guarantees that it will go (at least equally) to her daughter after his death - then that's a motivation to pursue such an alliance!
I mean, come on! 'Law' means a 100% guarantee. And a daughter of a rich elite guy is still 'elite', even though presently she doesn't have the properties in her name - she will definitely inherit that eventually.
What am I missing? Honestly, I get the logic clear, but here 'blank'.
GMATNinja
AndrewN
ANY expert?
Posted from my mobile device
Self introduction - a long time lurker, a first time poster.
Q3 has placed me in a very uncomfortable position. I usually get the answers right for both RC and CR, but I am missing something here in this particular question.
Q3 is a strengthen question and refers to authors 'explanation' explicitly in QS.
Again, passage explicitly states 'the laws explain'... OK, so far so good.
Now the divergence: Option-C says 'some'. OK, 'some' means at least 1, yeah maybe 2, but definitely not 'many' or even 'several'. Not convinced. Doesn't have the objectivity of scale.
Option-E: 'most' - great! Hispanic men - OK, if we consider between Hispanic Vs rest. So California belongs to Hispanic people, awesome.
Now, I connect this piece with QS 'explains', and passage 'explains' - which refers to 'the law'. And what does the law states - that women will eventually inherit the property! I mean, as I guy, if I know that even if currently the property belongs to a girl's father (Hispanic men) but there is a law that guarantees that it will go (at least equally) to her daughter after his death - then that's a motivation to pursue such an alliance!
I mean, come on! 'Law' means a 100% guarantee. And a daughter of a rich elite guy is still 'elite', even though presently she doesn't have the properties in her name - she will definitely inherit that eventually.
What am I missing? Honestly, I get the logic clear, but here 'blank'.
GMATNinja
AndrewN
ANY expert?
Posted from my mobile device
17 Jul 2021, 12:23
Kudos
Bookmarks
nkrnkr
Hello, nkrnkr. It is always good to hear from a new member, even one who has technically been a part of the community as a silent partner for months or years. (I am definitely more on the quiet side myself, despite appearances on this site.) I will do my best to break down the answer choices to this question so that your mind may be a little more at ease. The relevant part of the passage is the following excerpt from the end of paragraph one to the beginning of two:
Quote:
I will refrain from commenting on the excerpt for now so that I can write a more informed, answer-specific analysis. How about we look at the answer choices, then?
Quote:
The plot in question revolves around non-Hispanic traders marrying Californianas, not simply conducting business in the territory. For this simple reason, we can eliminate this one from contention.
Quote:
Not only would very few documented marriages have greater potential to work against the explanation rather than support it, but Hispanic women is also too broad when the stereotypical plot is centered on marriage to an elite Californiana. We cannot lose sight of this crucial distinction.
Quote:
You will note that in the excerpt above, the end of the first paragraph mentions property rights and inheritance rights. That and makes a big difference in how we can interpret the laws. Californianas were granted two things: property and inheritance need not be one and the same. In other words, Californianas could own property outright, without the need for a male benefactor. This notion fits well with the answer in front of us. Unlike (B) above, here, in this answer choice, elite Californianas are front and center, and yes, this evidence would show that some of them were, in fact, quite wealthy. I know, some is the sort of vague language that you can often use against an answer in CR and RC, but we can only take it at face value: some simply means more than one. Without more numbers to qualify the information, we cannot say that some is "definitely not 'many' or even 'several.'" Although this new information does not present proof positive to bolster the explanation Castañeda offers for the stereotypical plot, it is on point, and it strengthens that explanation more than anything else we have seen so far. We could place this one on hold while we examined the other options.
Quote:
This group of women has nothing to do with the plot in question, so, as awful as it sounds, we could not care less about their property rights. Associative answers such as this one are the bread and butter of question-writers who want to come up with clever traps. Learn to recognize when something may strike the right notes, but in a different key. Keep moving.
Quote:
Remember, we are aiming to strengthen the reason Castañeda believes this stereotypical Californiana plot sprang about. If Hispanic men were the predominant landowners at the time (and they very well may have been in real life), and the literature was meant to reflect such a fact, then we would expect the stereotypical plot to incorporate more courtship (romantic or otherwise) of this group of property-owning Hispanic men. In short, this answer is little different from (D), tossing a different group of people in front of us that has nothing to do with the Californiana-non-Hispanic-male bond that is outlined in the relevant part of the passage above. The reasoning you outlined above is what I label one-step-removed logic. It makes sense. Someone could marry into a Hispanic family and then wait for the old man to kick the bucket to inherit the estate. The problem, of course, is that the plot in question does not paint such a picture, making the entire consideration irrelevant. Just stick to what the passage says, directly. The more interpretive you get, the more flummoxed you will become.
In the end, only (C) agrees with the information presented in the passage, and that is why we should choose it. I hope my analysis proves helpful to you and other GMATTM aspirants. Good luck with your studies.
- Andrew
17 Jul 2021, 21:32
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi AndrewN,
Appreciate your analysis.
Just a few more points:
1. I was tricked due to the use the word 'some': I have seen numerous official answer choices rejected explicitly because of the implicit interpretation of 'some' as 'irrelevantly few' (including some of your analyses, which are wonderful, as always!). Of course, I have seen 'some' also work as a deciding factor in correct choices when it's more about a 0/1 logic, rather than a logic of scale (less/more).
This is the first time, I have encountered 'some' used at a place where scale matters, which is evident from the use of the word 'stereotypical'. You need 'several' instances to make something 'stereotypical'.
If we start interpreting 'some' as maybe 'several' or 'many', then many official questions can be debated. I think we better let 'some' refer to less magnitude.
2. Another confusion was because of the exact wordings of the passage 'For Castaneda, the laws explain a stereotypical plot'. I read it literally to imply the law got to do something with this whole plot. So 'inheritance law' to act as an incentive. It's such a common plot in movies and period dramas: pursuing the daughter of a king for greed of anticipated property/power. I didn't think of this reasoning as a 1-step removed logic.
Also, author just refers to 'elite Californianas' - daughter of 'elite' family is 'elite', ain't she? Author didn't refer only to Californianas who own properties as elite.
3. I interpreted AC5 as a distinction between Hispanic and Rest (not between Hispanic men and women), so I thought of it as a strengthener.
4. It's a bit funny to think that on one hand there is an inheritance law that provides equal right to women, while on the other hand 'most' properties for the complete 19th century (1801-1900) were controlled by 'men'. Quite a paradox, unless the law and ground reality were different, making the law essentially a dummy law. Or perhaps, the women willingly gave up their inheritance right.
Can we latch on to this 'disconnect' to rule out AC5: 'a law' not same as 'ground reality', both can be different?
5. Your distinction between the property right and inheritance right is to the point. Californianas can work hard and owe property by their own efforts. Good point.
6. I liked your message to keep my mind focussed on the story plot - a plot to pursue a women directly for greed of property is different from indirectly pursuing her. That can be a different plot, where the father needs to die first.
I consider official questions and the correct answer choices as words of Zeus: they MUST be foolproof. It's I that may be missing something here.
Anyway, enough blabbering. You do not need to reply, but still would appreciate if you can give your thoughts on my (lame) commentary. Other experts opinion also would be very helpful, always great to have a diverse range of opinions (VeritasKarishma, egmat, @CrackVerbalGMAT). In fact, I came to this question seeing one of the videos put up by GMATNinja.
Thanks all, thanks the community!
Posted from my mobile device
Appreciate your analysis.
Just a few more points:
1. I was tricked due to the use the word 'some': I have seen numerous official answer choices rejected explicitly because of the implicit interpretation of 'some' as 'irrelevantly few' (including some of your analyses, which are wonderful, as always!). Of course, I have seen 'some' also work as a deciding factor in correct choices when it's more about a 0/1 logic, rather than a logic of scale (less/more).
This is the first time, I have encountered 'some' used at a place where scale matters, which is evident from the use of the word 'stereotypical'. You need 'several' instances to make something 'stereotypical'.
If we start interpreting 'some' as maybe 'several' or 'many', then many official questions can be debated. I think we better let 'some' refer to less magnitude.
2. Another confusion was because of the exact wordings of the passage 'For Castaneda, the laws explain a stereotypical plot'. I read it literally to imply the law got to do something with this whole plot. So 'inheritance law' to act as an incentive. It's such a common plot in movies and period dramas: pursuing the daughter of a king for greed of anticipated property/power. I didn't think of this reasoning as a 1-step removed logic.
Also, author just refers to 'elite Californianas' - daughter of 'elite' family is 'elite', ain't she? Author didn't refer only to Californianas who own properties as elite.
3. I interpreted AC5 as a distinction between Hispanic and Rest (not between Hispanic men and women), so I thought of it as a strengthener.
4. It's a bit funny to think that on one hand there is an inheritance law that provides equal right to women, while on the other hand 'most' properties for the complete 19th century (1801-1900) were controlled by 'men'. Quite a paradox, unless the law and ground reality were different, making the law essentially a dummy law. Or perhaps, the women willingly gave up their inheritance right.
Can we latch on to this 'disconnect' to rule out AC5: 'a law' not same as 'ground reality', both can be different?
5. Your distinction between the property right and inheritance right is to the point. Californianas can work hard and owe property by their own efforts. Good point.
6. I liked your message to keep my mind focussed on the story plot - a plot to pursue a women directly for greed of property is different from indirectly pursuing her. That can be a different plot, where the father needs to die first.
I consider official questions and the correct answer choices as words of Zeus: they MUST be foolproof. It's I that may be missing something here.
Anyway, enough blabbering. You do not need to reply, but still would appreciate if you can give your thoughts on my (lame) commentary. Other experts opinion also would be very helpful, always great to have a diverse range of opinions (VeritasKarishma, egmat, @CrackVerbalGMAT). In fact, I came to this question seeing one of the videos put up by GMATNinja.
Thanks all, thanks the community!
Posted from my mobile device
