It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis

GMATNinja KarishmaB Can you please help me with Q. 101. " which of the following,if true, would most clearly undermine Gallagher`s explanation of the link between Royalism and feminism?"

At the starting of the passage this is mentioned "Catherine Gallagher argues that Royalism engendered feminism because the ideology of absolute monarchy provided a transition to an ideology of the absolute self"
I felt like cause-effect phenomenon was in play here.
Cause: The ideology of absolute monarchy providing a transition to an ideology of the absolute self
Effect: Royalism engendered feminism

If we give the effect any alternative cause, conclusion will get weakened. And A does that by stating "Royalist women were generally better educated than were their Parliamentarian counterparts." [Giving Education as another cause to get the effect of feminism]

It comes down to the available options. (C) is better than (A) and I will tell you why.

G says that Royalism engendered feminism because the ideology of absolute monarchy provided a transition to an ideology of the absolute self. She proceeded by giving an example of Cavendish. Cavendish was ambitious but knew that as a woman she was excluded from the pursuit of power in the real world (idea of absolute centerstage for the head), so she resolved to be mistress of her own world (absolute self, centre of her own being).

What will undermine this? If we can say that this is not the link. We can do that by undermining the example she gave. That other Royal women did not think the way Cavendish did. Then we undermine G's theory and that is what option (C) does.

Note that it is not said in the passage that G said that this is the ONLY reason why early feminists were Royalists . So giving an alternative isn't the best strategy. The education of Royal women could be an additional reason.

Recall that A caused B does not necessarily mean that C did not cause B until and unless the words imply it. But still, it comes down to the available options.

Hi MartyMurray , avigutman

Could you help me with a doubt I had regarding the following question please?

Q5) Which of the following, if true, would most clearly undermine Gallagher’s explanation of the link between Royalism and feminism?

A) Because of their privileged backgrounds, Royalist women were generally better educated than were their Parliamentarian counterparts.
b) Filmer himself had read some of Cavendish’s early writings and was highly critical of her ideas.
c) Cavendish’s views were highly individual and were not shared by the other Royalist women who wrote early feminist works.
D) The Royalist and Parliamentarian ideologies were largely in agreement on issues of family organization and women’s political rights.
E) The Royalist side included a sizeable minority faction that was opposed to the more radical tendencies of Filmerian patriarchalism.


OA is c) - I have reservations about if C really weakens Gallagher's explanation. Even if Cavendish's views ( self sufficiency, political-social isolation, and use of absolute monarchy to transition into individual autonomy) were highly individual, other royalist women may still have transitioned from the concept of absolute monarchy to the concept of absolute self (as suggested by Gallagher), without incorporating Cavendish's more eccentric views of isolation & self sufficiency. Infact, this is suggested at the end of the passage - "Cavendish's successors among early feminists retained her notion of women's sovereign self, but they also sought to break free from the complete political and social isolation that her absolute singularity entailed". This shows, that Gallagher/ Author does believe that Cavendish's views were highly unique and not shared by other feminists who still might have transitioned from the idea of absolute monarch to the idea of absolute self (Gallagher's explanation).

Also, while I originally thought that options A & E offer alternate explanations as to why almost all early feminists were Royalists effectively weakening Gallagher's explanation, I now feel that the reason they may be not weakening Gallagher's explanation as they can exist simultaneously/ are compatible with her explanation. (A) Educated royal women might have transitioned from absolute monarchy to absolute self because of their education, and (E) the minority might not have included all feminists, or might have been opposed to Filmerian patriarchism due to the reasons Gallagher suggests. (Am I right in thinking this?)

Thanks!­

 

­I think you're overthinking this, PReciSioN

­I generally advise students to avoid getting "in the weeds" of a RC passage, because the GMAT isn't interested in our ability to quickly study and retain details of a subject matter that we're not familiar with (unlike the LSAT, which is interested in that - that's why I advise GMAT students to NOT use LSAT RC to prep for the GMAT - but that's a subject for another post).

If we just stay at the high level of the paragraph in question, we have:

Catherine Gallagher argues that Blab engendered Bloob because IDEOLOGY A provided a transition to IDEOLOGY B. She cites the example of CAVENDISH...

What would undermine Gallagher’s explanation of the link between Royalism and feminism?
Well, where was Gallagher's support to her argument?
She cites the example of CAVENDISH...

That's really all we need (and all we SHOULD need) to answer this GMAT question.

Does anyone know why B for question 2 is incorrect. I was under the impression that Cavendish did not challenge the ideology of patriarchy directly, as she utilized the idea of patriarchy and transitioned it into idea of self. Please help.

Posted from my mobile device

Question 2

Question 2 asks about "the seventeenth-century English women mentioned in line 2." This includes the whole group of women "who are generally regarded as among the forerunners of modern feminism," not just Cavendish. What does the passage suggest about these women?

Here's (B):


Filmer was all about patriarchy, whether he was discussing the monarchy or the family structure. Later in the first paragraph, we learn that the "forerunners of modern feminism" DID openly challenge this line of thinking. Specifically, they "wrote the earliest extended criticisms of the absolute subordination of women in marriage and the earliest systematic assertions of women’s rational and moral equality with men."

Because these women did openly challenge Filmer, we can eliminate (B) for question 2.

I hope that helps!­

Hi,

I would like to understand a bit more about the Question 5: "Which of the following if True, would most likely undermine Gallagher's Explanation?

My Chosen Answer: I was confused between A, C, E and eventually chose E which was incorrect.

My Thinking Process as to why I was confused on A and E:
A - Gallagher mentions that "Royalism engendered feminism because the ideology of absolute monarchy provided a transition to the ideology of absolute self." What if it wasn't the ideology of absolute monarch but the fact that they were just more educated. ( There is another reason for the ideology of absolute self and hence feminism and not the transition mentioned ). Hence if this reason was true, education was actually what created the rise in feminism as opposed to the ideology of absolute monarchy.

E: "The Royalist side included a sizeable minority faction that was opposed to the more radical tendencies of Filmerian patriarchalism." My thinking for this option was: If this statement was true, then the ideologies of this minority might have been the trigger for the rise of ideology of absolute self as opposed to the idealogy of absolute monarchy. ( Again there could have been another reason for the rise of the absolute self and hence feminism as opposed to the given reason.)

Could you help point me in where my thinking is wrong? In cases where we are asked which statement is likely to undermine the argument if true: Can we think along the lines of "If there is another reason for the outcome to be true then the presented reason might not be the condition for the outcome and hence the statement is undermined?"

Thanks for your time!