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