It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis : Reading Comprehension (RC)

L

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Posts: 7056

Own Kudos [?]: 65058 [9]

Given Kudos: 1835

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51

GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

14 Dec 2021, 15:31

9

Kudos

Expert Reply

Passage breakdown

In the first paragraph (P1), the author introduces an odd fact, presents one explanation for this fact, and refutes this explanation:

The "odd fact": the forerunners of modern feminism were Royalists, whose ideas were very patriarchal.
The author presents and refutes one explanation for this fact.

In the second paragraph, the author presents and supports a scholar's explanation for the odd fact from P1:

Catherine Gallagher uses the work of Margaret Cavendish to show how the ideology of the absolute monarch led to the ideology of the absolute self.

For more on this process, check out this article and our live RC videos.

Explanations for individual questions

L

BillyZ

Current Student

Joined: 14 Nov 2016

Posts: 1165

Own Kudos [?]: 21097 [1]

Given Kudos: 926

Location: Malaysia

Concentration: General Management, Strategy

Schools: Sloan '23 (D) Tuck '23 (D) Darden '23 (D) Ross '23 (D) Kellogg '23 (D) Wharton '23 (D) Booth '23 (D) Fuqua '24 (A) Harvard '24 (D) Stanford '24 (D)

GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40 (Online) Verified score

GPA: 3.53

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

21 Sep 2017, 22:53

1

Kudos

RaviChandra wrote:

It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century English women who are generally regarded as among the forerunners of modern feminism are almost all identified with the Royalist side in the conflict between Royalists and Parliamentarians known as the English Civil Wars. Since Royalist ideology is often associated with the radical patriarchalism of seventeenth century political theorist Robert Filmer—a patriarchalism that equates family and kingdom and asserts the divinely ordained absolute power of the king and, by analogy, of the male head of the household—historians have been understandably puzzled by the fact that Royalist women 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. Some historians have questioned the facile equation of Royalist ideology with Filmerian patriarchalism; and indeed, there may have been no consistent differences between Royalists and Parliamentarians on issues of family organization and women’s political rights, but in that case one would expect early feminists to be equally divided between the two sides.

Catherine Gallagher argues that Royalism engendered feminism because the ideology of absolute monarchy provided a transition to an ideology of the absolute self. She cites the example of the notoriously eccentric author Margaret Cavendish (1626–1673), duchess of Newcastle. Cavendish claimed to be as ambitious as any woman could be, but knowing that as a woman she was excluded from the pursuit of power in the real world, she resolved to be mistress of her own world, the “immaterial world” that any person can create within her own mind—and, as a writer, on paper. In proclaiming what she called her “singularity,” Cavendish insisted that she was a self-sufficient being within her mental empire, the center of her own subjective universe rather than a satellite orbiting a dominant male planet. In justifying this absolute singularity, Cavendish repeatedly invoked the model of the absolute monarch, a figure that became a metaphor for the self-enclosed, autonomous nature of the individual person. Cavendish’s successors among early feminists retained her notion of woman’s sovereign self, but they also sought to break free from the complete political and social isolation that her absolute singularity entailed.

99. The Phrase "a satellite orbiting a dominant male planet" refers most directly to

A: Cavendish's concept that each woman is a sovereign self

B: the complete political and social isolation of absolute singularity

C: the immaterial world that a writer can create on paper

D: the absolute subordination of women in a patriarchal society

E: the metaphorical figure of the absolute monarch

Show Spoiler

OA:D

Passage: English Women

Question: Specific Detail

The Simple Story

Seventeenth-century English feminists sided with the Royalists, not the Parliamentarians. This is strange, because Royalists are often associated with the belief that the male head of household holds absolute power. One possible explanation is that Royalists actually didn’t commonly hold these patriarchal beliefs; however, that wouldn’t explain why the feminists were more commonly found among the Royalists. A better explanation (put forth by Gallagher) is that the feminists agreed with the Royalist belief in the power and sovereignty of the individual.

Sample Passage Map

Here is one way to map this passage. (Note: abbreviate as desired!)

P1: feminists more with R than P

weird b/c R believe in power for men

P2: CG: R beliefs related to absolute self

feminists (ex. MC) agreed with R on that

Step 1: Identify the Question

The phrase refers most directly to in the question stem indicates that this is a Detail question.

Step 2: Find the Support

The question stem cites a specific section of the passage. Reread that section and the text immediately surrounding it.

“Cavendish insisted that she was a self-sufficient being within her mental empire, the center of her own subjective universe rather than a satellite orbiting a dominant male planet.”

Step 3: Predict an Answer

The passage describes the satellite as the opposite of a self-sufficient being…the center of her own subjective universe. In the context of the passage, the word satellite therefore refers to the 17th-century women who were unable to pursue power in the real world.

Step 4: Eliminate and Find a Match

(A) The satellite metaphor refers to the inability of women to pursue power in the real world, not their ability to pursue power in the immaterial world as a sovereign self. The passage contrasts these two concepts.

(B) The satellite is discussed in the context of Margaret Cavendish’s beliefs, while the political and social isolation of singularity is discussed only in the context of Cavendish’s successors.

(C) For Cavendish, creating an immaterial world on paper was an element of being the center of her own subjective universe. This is the opposite of being a satellite orbiting a dominant male planet.

(D) CORRECT. Cavendish saw herself as the center of her own subjective universe as an alternative to seeing herself as a satellite. Since the concept of being the center of one’s own subjective universe emerged as an alternative to the material subjugation of women, the satellite metaphor refers to this subjugation.

(E) Cavendish used the figure of the absolute monarch to evoke the self-enclosed, autonomous nature of the individual person. The passage presents the satellite as the opposite of self-enclosed and autonomous.

L

BillyZ

Current Student

Joined: 14 Nov 2016

Posts: 1165

Own Kudos [?]: 21097 [3]

Given Kudos: 926

Location: Malaysia

Concentration: General Management, Strategy

Schools: Sloan '23 (D) Tuck '23 (D) Darden '23 (D) Ross '23 (D) Kellogg '23 (D) Wharton '23 (D) Booth '23 (D) Fuqua '24 (A) Harvard '24 (D) Stanford '24 (D)

GMAT 1: 750 Q51 V40 (Online) Verified score

GPA: 3.53

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

21 Sep 2017, 23:02

3

Kudos

RaviChandra wrote:

It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century English women who are generally regarded as among the forerunners of modern feminism are almost all identified with the Royalist side in the conflict between Royalists and Parliamentarians known as the English Civil Wars. Since Royalist ideology is often associated with the radical patriarchalism of seventeenth century political theorist Robert Filmer—a patriarchalism that equates family and kingdom and asserts the divinely ordained absolute power of the king and, by analogy, of the male head of the household—historians have been understandably puzzled by the fact that Royalist women 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. Some historians have questioned the facile equation of Royalist ideology with Filmerian patriarchalism; and indeed, there may have been no consistent differences between Royalists and Parliamentarians on issues of family organization and women’s political rights, but in that case one would expect early feminists to be equally divided between the two sides.

Catherine Gallagher argues that Royalism engendered feminism because the ideology of absolute monarchy provided a transition to an ideology of the absolute self. She cites the example of the notoriously eccentric author Margaret Cavendish (1626–1673), duchess of Newcastle. Cavendish claimed to be as ambitious as any woman could be, but knowing that as a woman she was excluded from the pursuit of power in the real world, she resolved to be mistress of her own world, the “immaterial world” that any person can create within her own mind—and, as a writer, on paper. In proclaiming what she called her “singularity,” Cavendish insisted that she was a self-sufficient being within her mental empire, the center of her own subjective universe rather than a satellite orbiting a dominant male planet. In justifying this absolute singularity, Cavendish repeatedly invoked the model of the absolute monarch, a figure that became a metaphor for the self-enclosed, autonomous nature of the individual person. Cavendish’s successors among early feminists retained her notion of woman’s sovereign self, but they also sought to break free from the complete political and social isolation that her absolute singularity entailed.

100. The primary purpose of the passage is to:

(A) trace the historical roots of modern sociopolitical movement

(B) present one scholar's explanation for a puzzling historical phenomenon

(C) contrast two interpretations of the ideological origins of a political conflict

(D) establish a link between the ideology of an influential political theorist and that of a notoriously eccentric writer

(E) call attention to some points of agreement between opposing sides in an ideological debate

Show Spoiler

OA:B

Passage: English Women
Question: Primary Purpose
The Simple Story

Seventeenth-century English feminists sided with the Royalists, not the Parliamentarians. This is strange, because Royalists are often associated with the belief that the male head of household holds absolute power. One possible explanation is that Royalists actually didn’t commonly hold these patriarchal beliefs; however, that wouldn’t explain why the feminists were more commonly found among the Royalists. A better explanation (put forth by Gallagher) is that the feminists agreed with the Royalist belief in the power and sovereignty of the individual.

Sample Passage Map

Here is one way to map this passage. (Note: abbreviate as desired!)

P1: feminists more with R than P

weird b/c R believe in power for men

P2: CG: R beliefs related to absolute self

feminists (ex. MC) agreed with R on that

Step 1: Identify the Question

The phrase primary purpose in the question stem indicates that this is a Primary Purpose, or main idea, question.

Step 2: Find the Support

The support for a Purpose question is in the structure of the passage itself. The first paragraph introduces the idea that seventeenth-century feminists were, surprisingly, aligned with Royalists in the English Civil Wars. The remainder of the passage addresses why this phenomenon was surprising, then attempts to reconcile it using the concept of the ideology of the absolute self.

Step 3: Predict an Answer

The passage accomplishes three things: introduces a surprising fact, explains why it is surprising, then attempts to provide an explanation. The correct answer will incorporate these major elements of the passage.

Step 4: Eliminate and Find a Match

(A) The passage does not make a connection between seventeenth-century feminism and modern times. Instead, it addresses only the situation in the seventeenth century.

(B) CORRECT. The entire passage is dedicated to describing a puzzling phenomenon—the alignment between seventeenth-century feminists and Royalists—then providing an explanation for it.

(C) The political conflict described in the passage is the conflict between Parliamentarians and Royalists. The passage describes one of the factors (radical patriarchalism) involved in Royalist ideology, but it does not contrast this to another interpretation, nor does it describe the origins of the Royalist-Parliamentarian conflict.

(D) Filmer and Cavendish are both mentioned in the passage, but both of them are used as examples that assist the author in making broader points. Filmer is cited as an example of radical patriarchalism, which helps the author establish the strangeness of the phenomenon described in the first paragraph, while Cavendish is used to help the author explain that phenomenon. The passage is not primarily about these two characters, nor does the author attempt to specifically establish a link between them.

(E) The passage mentions this only briefly, towards the end of the first paragraph. It is not the main focus of that paragraph and is not mentioned in the second paragraph.

S

aceGMAT21

Manager

Joined: 19 Aug 2017

Status:Aiming MBA!!

Posts: 83

Own Kudos [?]: 234 [9]

Given Kudos: 90

Location: India

Schools: Rotman '20 Fisher '20 Kelley '20 NUS '20 ISB '19 Imperial '20

GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25

GPA: 3.75

WE:Web Development (Consulting)

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

04 Nov 2017, 12:48

7

Kudos

2

Bookmarks

sunny91 wrote:

hazelnut wrote:

RaviChandra wrote:

It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century English women who are generally regarded as among the forerunners of modern feminism are almost all identified with the Royalist side in the conflict between Royalists and Parliamentarians known as the English Civil Wars. Since Royalist ideology is often associated with the radical patriarchalism of seventeenth century political theorist Robert Filmer—a patriarchalism that equates family and kingdom and asserts the divinely ordained absolute power of the king and, by analogy, of the male head of the household—historians have been understandably puzzled by the fact that Royalist women 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. Some historians have questioned the facile equation of Royalist ideology with Filmerian patriarchalism; and indeed, there may have been no consistent differences between Royalists and Parliamentarians on issues of family organization and women’s political rights, but in that case one would expect early feminists to be equally divided between the two sides.

Catherine Gallagher argues that Royalism engendered feminism because the ideology of absolute monarchy provided a transition to an ideology of the absolute self. She cites the example of the notoriously eccentric author Margaret Cavendish (1626–1673), duchess of Newcastle. Cavendish claimed to be as ambitious as any woman could be, but knowing that as a woman she was excluded from the pursuit of power in the real world, she resolved to be mistress of her own world, the “immaterial world” that any person can create within her own mind—and, as a writer, on paper. In proclaiming what she called her “singularity,” Cavendish insisted that she was a self-sufficient being within her mental empire, the center of her own subjective universe rather than a satellite orbiting a dominant male planet. In justifying this absolute singularity, Cavendish repeatedly invoked the model of the absolute monarch, a figure that became a metaphor for the self-enclosed, autonomous nature of the individual person. Cavendish’s successors among early feminists retained her notion of woman’s sovereign self, but they also sought to break free from the complete political and social isolation that her absolute singularity entailed.

100. The primary purpose of the passage is to:

(A) trace the historical roots of modern sociopolitical movement

(B) present one scholar's explanation for a puzzling historical phenomenon

(C) contrast two interpretations of the ideological origins of a political conflict

(D) establish a link between the ideology of an influential political theorist and that of a notoriously eccentric writer

(E) call attention to some points of agreement between opposing sides in an ideological debate

Show Spoiler

OA:B

Passage: English Women
Question: Primary Purpose
The Simple Story

Seventeenth-century English feminists sided with the Royalists, not the Parliamentarians. This is strange, because Royalists are often associated with the belief that the male head of household holds absolute power. One possible explanation is that Royalists actually didn’t commonly hold these patriarchal beliefs; however, that wouldn’t explain why the feminists were more commonly found among the Royalists. A better explanation (put forth by Gallagher) is that the feminists agreed with the Royalist belief in the power and sovereignty of the individual.

Sample Passage Map

Here is one way to map this passage. (Note: abbreviate as desired!)

P1: feminists more with R than P

weird b/c R believe in power for men

P2: CG: R beliefs related to absolute self

feminists (ex. MC) agreed with R on that

Step 1: Identify the Question

The phrase primary purpose in the question stem indicates that this is a Primary Purpose, or main idea, question.

Step 2: Find the Support

The support for a Purpose question is in the structure of the passage itself. The first paragraph introduces the idea that seventeenth-century feminists were, surprisingly, aligned with Royalists in the English Civil Wars. The remainder of the passage addresses why this phenomenon was surprising, then attempts to reconcile it using the concept of the ideology of the absolute self.

Step 3: Predict an Answer

The passage accomplishes three things: introduces a surprising fact, explains why it is surprising, then attempts to provide an explanation. The correct answer will incorporate these major elements of the passage.

Step 4: Eliminate and Find a Match

(A) The passage does not make a connection between seventeenth-century feminism and modern times. Instead, it addresses only the situation in the seventeenth century.

(B) CORRECT. The entire passage is dedicated to describing a puzzling phenomenon—the alignment between seventeenth-century feminists and Royalists—then providing an explanation for it.

(C) The political conflict described in the passage is the conflict between Parliamentarians and Royalists. The passage describes one of the factors (radical patriarchalism) involved in Royalist ideology, but it does not contrast this to another interpretation, nor does it describe the origins of the Royalist-Parliamentarian conflict.

(D) Filmer and Cavendish are both mentioned in the passage, but both of them are used as examples that assist the author in making broader points. Filmer is cited as an example of radical patriarchalism, which helps the author establish the strangeness of the phenomenon described in the first paragraph, while Cavendish is used to help the author explain that phenomenon. The passage is not primarily about these two characters, nor does the author attempt to specifically establish a link between them.

(E) The passage mentions this only briefly, towards the end of the first paragraph. It is not the main focus of that paragraph and is not mentioned in the second paragraph.

Hi Hazelnut,
Can u kindly explain the answer to the first question. OA is D, which states - highlight an apparent tension between Royalists ideology and the ideas of early feminists. But there was no tension between royalists and early feminists as the latter sided with royalists. This situation was puzzling o historians. So, how option D is correct as there is no tension to highlight.

Hi sunny91,

Let me try to help.

You said -- "there was no tension between royalists and early feminists as the latter sided with royalists". That's okay, as you already mentioned that (the seventeenth-century English women ~~who are generally regarded as among the forerunners of modern feminism~~ are almost all identified with the Royalist side in the conflict between Royalists and Parliamentarians known as the English Civil Wars.). But if you read closely the option is talking about the tension between Royalists ideology and the ideas of early feminists. So, what I mean is that though these women are with the Royalists but their ideologies are different from the Royalists idea as can be inferred from the facts provided. To further support my point, let me bring the excerpts from the passage,

Royalists ideology -- supporting patriarchalism (MALE DOMINATION)
Passage says : "a patriarchalism that equates family and kingdom and asserts the divinely ordained absolute power of the king and, by analogy, of the male head of the household"

Early feminists ideology -- strong supporter of women rights and equality
Passage says : "Royalist women 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."

Now coming to the question, (The author of the passage refers to Robert Filmer primarily in order to)

The author refers to Filmer to highlight this difference between the ideologies of the two group, which supports the odd but indisputable fact, which is used by the author in the starting of the passage. So, these differences are actually troubling the historians. For which the author gives reason in the second paragraph.

Hope it answers your query. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Which option did you picked?

Thanks.
-Varun

L

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Posts: 7056

Own Kudos [?]: 65058 [4]

Given Kudos: 1835

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51

GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

17 Jan 2018, 19:06

2

Kudos

2

Bookmarks

Expert Reply

First of all, thanks Wimpykid, aceGMAT21, and MvArrow for pointing out the typos in the original post. All questions have been updated, so please use the "Report a Problem" button if you see any other mistakes! I also apologize for missing some of the questions in this thread. To help ensure your questions are answered in a timely manner, please use the request verbal experts' reply button.

sunny91 wrote:

Can u kindly explain the answer to the first question. OA is D, which states - highlight an apparent tension between Royalists ideology and the ideas of early feminists. But there was no tension between royalists and early feminists as the latter sided with royalists. This situation was puzzling o historians. So, how option D is correct as there is no tension to highlight.

Thanks aceGMAT21 for answering that one!

priya sri wrote:

can anyone explain question 96

Priya sri, please refer to the explanation below: https://gmatclub.com/forum/it-is-an-odd ... l#p1956328

Poorvasha wrote:

Hi GMATNinja,

I have a doubt with regards to question 98 as listed above. The OA for this is E: Create a world over which she could exercise total control. Can you please help with the POE for this question ? Also, isn't this option too extreme ? Although passage uses statements like "she resolved to be mistress of her own world". Does this really imply that she wanted to create a world over which she could exercise TOTAL control ?

Thanks in advance!

Quote:

98. The passage suggests that Margaret Cavendish's decision to become a author was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to

A: justify her support for the Royalist cause - We are not told whether Cavendish supports the Royalist cause.

B: encourage her readers to work toward eradicating Filmerian patriarchalism - Cavendish may have felt restricted by Filmerian patriarchalism, but the passage does not say whether Cavendish wanted her readers to work toward eradicating Filmerian patriarchalism or, more importantly, whether that motivated her to become a writer.

C: persuade other women to break free from their political and social isolation - The passage does not say whether Cavendish wanted to PERSUADE other women to break free from their political/social isolation.

D: analyze the causes for women's exclusion from the pursuit of power - We don't know whether Cavendish analyzed the CAUSES for women's exclusion from the pursuit of power.

E: create a world over which she could exercise total control - This refers to the world that Cavendish creates on paper with her writing--a world that is entirely a product of HER imagination. Thus, it is not an exaggeration to say that she is in total control of that world. She can write whatever she wants, so she is in fact in total of control of the world that she creates on paper as a writer.

L

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Posts: 7056

Own Kudos [?]: 65058 [4]

Given Kudos: 1835

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51

GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

08 Mar 2018, 17:28

4

Kudos

Expert Reply

aviejay wrote:

Question number 6:

Please explain how is Catherine Gallagher's argument an explanation of the fact that early feminists were more on the royalist side?

I chose A as it seemed the best choice.

aviejay, are you referring to question 101?

In any case, we are told that Gallagher argued that Royalism engendered (i.e. "brought about") feminism. How? Because "the ideology of absolute monarchy provided a transition to an ideology of the absolute self."

So what the heck does that mean? Well, consider the example of Cavendish, who "insisted that she was a self-sufficient being within her mental empire." An absolute monarch (i.e. a king) rules his kingdom. Similarly, Cavendish ruled her own mental empire. Within her "immaterial world", Cavendish was in charge.

In other words, Cavendish could model her own autonomy (governing her own mental world) after an absolute monarch. So Royalism planted a seed of self-sufficiency and autonomy that would grow into feminism. Thus, according to Gallagher, feminist ideas would have been more readily developed among Royalist women.

I hope that helps!

G

Masterscorp

Manager

Joined: 14 Oct 2017

Posts: 189

Own Kudos [?]: 275 [1]

Given Kudos: 385

GMAT 1: 710 Q44 V41

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

25 Jun 2018, 08:58

1

Kudos

Regarding question 6 (main point of the passage):

Is the notion correct that the passage primarily presents one scholar's explanation?

To my understanding Filmer and Gallagher present different explanations even though these explanations have a similar background (Royalist view was predominant among feminists).
Hence, answer B, which mentions only one scholar, threw me off a bit.

GMATNinja, can you please explain?

L

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Posts: 7056

Own Kudos [?]: 65058 [10]

Given Kudos: 1835

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51

GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

06 Jul 2018, 18:40

7

Kudos

2

Bookmarks

Expert Reply

Question 6

Masterscorp wrote:

Regarding question 6 (main point of the passage):

Is the notion correct that the passage primarily presents one scholar's explanation?

To my understanding Filmer and Gallagher present different explanations even though these explanations have a similar background (Royalist view was predominant among feminists).
Hence, answer B, which mentions only one scholar, threw me off a bit.

GMATNinja, can you please explain?

Quote:

100. The primary purpose of the passage is to:

(A) trace the historical roots of a modern sociopolitical movement

(B) present one scholar's explanation for a puzzling historical phenomenon

(C) contrast two interpretations of the ideological origins of a political conflict

(D) establish a link between the ideology of an influential political theorist and that of a notoriously eccentric writer

(E) call attention to some points of agreement between opposing sides in an ideological debate

The passage does present the views of Filmer. However, Filmer's views do not serve to explain a puzzling historical phenomenon. Instead, Filmer's views contribute to the puzzling nature of the phenomenon. If Royalists are associated with "a patriarchalism that equates family and kingdom and asserts the divinely ordained absolute power of the king and, by analogy, of the male head of the household", then why would Royalist women criticize patriarchalism?

Remember, we are looking for the primary purpose, not a summary of the passage. Two scholars are indeed mentioned, but the main purpose of the passage is to present Gallagher's explanation for the puzzling phenomenon.

aviejay, sorry for overlooking your follow-up question...

Choice (A) is wrong because the passage does not trace the connection between modern feminism and early feminism.

I hope that helps!

L

Mo2men

SVP

Joined: 26 Mar 2013

Posts: 2455

Own Kudos [?]: 1387 [0]

Given Kudos: 641

Concentration: Operations, Strategy

Schools: Erasmus (II)

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

20 Aug 2019, 07:42

Dear GMATGuruNY
I do not understand the answer for question # 1. As per the passage, the women sided with Royalist ideology so there is no tension between them.
How come choice D be the OA?

Can you help please?

D

GMATGuruNY

Tutor

Joined: 04 Aug 2010

Posts: 1333

Own Kudos [?]: 3303 [7]

Given Kudos: 9

Schools:Dartmouth College

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

24 Aug 2019, 14:13

5

Kudos

2

Bookmarks

Expert Reply

Mo2men wrote:

Dear GMATGuruNY
I do not understand the answer for question # 1. As per the passage, the women sided with Royalist ideology so there is no tension between them.
How come choice D be the OA?

Can you help please?

According to the passage, forerunners of modern feminism are almost all identified with the Royalist side.
In other words, Royalist women were early feminists.

WHY does the author mention Robert Filmer?
Since Royalist ideology is often associated with the radical patriarchalism of seventeenth century political theorist Robert Filmer—a patriarchalism that equates family and kingdom and asserts the divinely ordained absolute power of the king and, by analogy, of the male head of the household—historians have been understandably puzzled by the fact that Royalist women 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.

Whereas Royalist ideology designated the male as HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD, Royalist women -- as early feminists -- asserted women's EQUALITY WITH MEN.
Thus, option D is supported:
The author mentions Robert Filmer to highlight an apparent tension between Royalist ideology and the ideas of early feminists.
Here, tension = the strained state resulting from the conflict in green.

Show Spoiler

D

L

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Posts: 7056

Own Kudos [?]: 65058 [11]

Given Kudos: 1835

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51

GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

02 Sep 2019, 20:35

8

Kudos

3

Bookmarks

Expert Reply

Question 1

Mo2men wrote:

Dear GMATNinja
I do not understand the answer for question # 1.

Let's start with the passage itself:

Quote:

It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century English women who are generally regarded as among the forerunners of modern feminism are almost all identified with the Royalist side in the conflict between Royalists and Parliamentarians known as the English Civil Wars.

The author immediately tells us two things here:

The forerunners of modern feminism are almost all identified with Royalists.
This is odd.

Next, the author spells out why this is odd:

Quote:

Since Royalist ideology is often associated with the radical patriarchalism of seventeenth century political theorist Robert Filmer—a patriarchalism that equates family and kingdom and asserts the divinely ordained absolute power of the king and, by analogy, of the male head of the household—historians have been understandably puzzled by the fact that Royalist women 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.

Royalist ideology is often associated with Filmer's partriarchalism.
Filmer's patriarchalism asserts the absolute power of the male in kingdom and family.
Yet, the earliest extended criticism of absolute subordination of women was done by Royalist women.

So, why does the author refer to Robert Filmer? In order to spell out this puzzling, odd contradiction. The writings of these women go against Filmer's theory. Yet, the women themselves associate with the Royalists who are associated with Filmer's theory.

Here's choice (D) again:

Quote:

(D) highlight an apparent tension between Royalist ideology and the ideas of early feminists

This matches what we know about why the author brings Filmer into the passage.

Responding to doubts about "tension":

Mo2men wrote:

As per the passage, the women sided with Royalist ideology so there is not tension between them.

jabhatta@umail.iu.edu wrote:

Hi mikemcgarry

On q1 , i did not chose D because the of one word Tension

a) I don't see how tension can be between two ideologies per se ...isn't tension normally between people, not ideologies ?

b) Also , Just because two ideologies are starkly different, does not mean necessarily there is "TENSION" between the people with these different ideologies ... Proof : the followers of these different ideologies were eventually on the same team (Royalists were associated with Feminists) ...if there was "TENSION", they would not be on the same team

Any suggestions on where i am going wrong with my interpretation of choice D

(a) In fact, tension can exist between ideologies or ideas, so this use of "tension" is fine.
(b) Tensions can exist within groups or between groups.

Taking a political side or joining a specific group doesn't eliminate the possibility of tension. Since folks around here seem to love Game of Thrones, think about Jon Snow joining the Night's Watch. He immediately faced tension within the group despite taking the same vow as everyone else on that side. This tension was present from his very first day at Castle Black.
We can also approach this strictly through logic: If I identify with one side of a conflict, you cannot conclude that I agree 100% with that side's ideology, or have zero tension with that ideology. I'd have to give you more explicit information for you to conclude that no tension exists.
The author is not simply presenting two ideologies that are simply different. The author is presenting two ideologies that seem to directly contradict each other, yet are associated with each other.

Remember, Question 1 asks us why the author refers to Filmer. Given the purpose of the paragraph, it makes sense to say that the author is referring to Filmer primarily to highlight an apparent tension between Royalist ideology and early feminist ideas. So at the very least, we should keep choice (D) around as we finish the process of elimination.

I hope this helps!

B

duckitology

Intern

Joined: 09 Jul 2019

Posts: 1

Own Kudos [?]: 1 [1]

Given Kudos: 31

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

03 Sep 2019, 10:19

1

Kudos

rmohammadi wrote:

mdsingh2013 wrote:

for 97 The passage suggests which of the following about the seventeenth-century English women mentioned in line 2?

A: Their status as forerunners of modern feminists is not entirely justified
B They did not openly challenge the radical patriarchalism of Royalist Filmerian ideology
C: Cavendish was the first among these women to criticize women's subordination in marriage and assert women equality with men
D: Their views on family organization and women's political rights were diametrically opposed to those of both Royalist and patriarchalism ideology
E: Historians would be less puzzled if more of them were identified with the Patriarchalism side in the English Civil Wars

The official answer is:
E: Historians would be less puzzled if more of them were identified with the Patriarchalism side in the English Civil Wars

the official explanation rejects D saying:
The passage does not indicate what the Parliamentarian view of family organization and women's political rights was, so there is no way to determine whether the royalist forerunners of modern feminism were opposed to that view

And the official explanation for E towards the end says:
Historians would most likely have been less surprised if these women had been identified with parliamentary side, which presumably did not embrace radical patriarchalism

1) In the passage, lines 20-25 do suggest that Parliamentarians had a similar radical view, even though it says a few historians claim it.
2) If there is no way to determine the views of parliamentary side(according to official explanation for option D), how do they assume in option E that it was less radical?

I thought the correct answer to be D. Any explanations would be appreciated?

I did not see official guide. But I think that there are some errors in the words written in the question above. Do not confuse parliamentary with patriarchalism.

According to passage:

There are conflicts between Royalism and parliamentary.
There is a association between Royalism and patriarchalism.
patriarchalism = radical absolute power.

So, parliamentary = not or less radical idea.

Royal feminists ---> criticize women subordination and advocate women political power but royalism ---> absolute male power. so historians are puzzled.

If feminists had been identified with parliamentary side(less absolute male power), not royal side, then historians would have been less puzzled.

I would like to disagree. In the passage, and in the lines referenced in the user you are replying to, it is stated that "there may have been no consistent differences between Royalists and Parliamentarians on issues of family organization and women's political rights, but in that case one would expect early feminists to be equally divided between the two sides"

In this quote, "no consistent differences" equates to, well, being similar or equal.
1. If the ideologies of Royalists and Parliamentarians, not Patriarchalism, are similar or equal,
2. If the passage openly states the Royalists inherent opposition to feminism,
3. Then the Parliamentarians must also have an inherent opposition to feminism, by pure logic.
4. Therefore, the 17th century English women's views must be opposed, most likely diametrically, to those of the Parliamentarians.

Furthermore, I would like to disagree that E is a good answer. The text does not explicitly state that the Parliamentarians had an ideology that supported feminism. Therefore, it is unreasonable and illogical to believe that feminists would side with an ideology that doesn't explicitly support feminism, just because it has a differing ideology from the Royalists, who openly don't support feminism.

I believe the OG's explanation and/or reasoning is flawed. There must be a better explanation as to why E is more correct than D.

GMATNinja help please?

L

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Posts: 7056

Own Kudos [?]: 65058 [8]

Given Kudos: 1835

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51

GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

19 Oct 2019, 06:29

5

Kudos

3

Bookmarks

Expert Reply

duckitology wrote:

I would like to disagree. In the passage, and in the lines referenced in the user you are replying to, it is stated that "there may have been no consistent differences between Royalists and Parliamentarians on issues of family organization and women's political rights, but in that case one would expect early feminists to be equally divided between the two sides"

In this quote, "no consistent differences" equates to, well, being similar or equal.
1. If the ideologies of Royalists and Parliamentarians, not Patriarchalism, are similar or equal,
2. If the passage openly states the Royalists inherent opposition to feminism,
3. Then the Parliamentarians must also have an inherent opposition to feminism, by pure logic.
4. Therefore, the 17th century English women's views must be opposed, most likely diametrically, to those of the Parliamentarians.

Furthermore, I would like to disagree that E is a good answer. The text does not explicitly state that the Parliamentarians had an ideology that supported feminism. Therefore, it is unreasonable and illogical to believe that feminists would side with an ideology that doesn't explicitly support feminism, just because it has a differing ideology from the Royalists, who openly don't support feminism.

I believe the OG's explanation and/or reasoning is flawed. There must be a better explanation as to why E is more correct than D.

GMATNinja help please?

Quote:

E: Historians would be less puzzled if more of them were identified with the Parliamentarian side in the English Civil Wars.

The passage starts off by telling us that "Royalist ideology is often associated with the radical patriarchalism of... Robert Filmer". This sort of patriarchalism "asserts the divinely ordained absolute power of... the male head of the household." Therefore, historians were "understandably puzzled" by the fact that almost all of the English women regarded as the forerunners of modern feminism were Royalists.

Why would a group associated with radical patriarchalism--and absolute power of MEN--produce the forerunners of modern feminism? And, furthermore, why is it that ALMOST ALL of the early feminists came from a group associated with radical patriarchalism?! Historians have been puzzled by this apparent discrepancy.

If more of those early feminist women had been Parliamentarian, we would NOT be able to say that "almost all" of the English women regarded as the forerunners of modern feminism were Royalists. In that case, the early feminist women would have been a mix of Royalists and Parliamentarians. That would weaken the apparent correlation between being among the forerunners of modern feminism and being a Royalist.

The historians might still be puzzled by the fact that there were Royalist feminists. But the more Parliamentarians women we have among the forerunners the LESS puzzled those historians would be. So choice (E) is perfectly logical.

Quote:

"there may have been no consistent differences between Royalists and Parliamentarians on issues of family organization and women's political rights, but in that case one would expect early feminists to be equally divided between the two sides"

As for this statement, the author is basically saying, "okay, perhaps the two groups (Royalists and Parliamentarians) had the same views on family organization/political rights.... but that would only explain a MIXED bag of feminists (some Royalist and some Parliamentarian). It would NOT explain the fact that almost all of them were Royalist."

In other words, the author does not definitively say, "There were NO consistent differences." Instead, the author says, "There MAY have been no consistent differences." Maybe there were differences, maybe not... either way, we would not have a sufficient explanation for the apparent discrepancy described above.

So how do we explain the discrepancy? According to the author, the explanation lies in the fact that Royalists supported the idea of an absolute monarchy. The second paragraph explains why the idea of an absolute monarchy lends itself to feminist ideas.

We're actually left not knowing (and not caring) how the Parliamentarians felt about family organization and women's political rights. All that matters is the idea of absolute monarchy, something supported by the Royalists, not the Parliamentarians. Maybe Royalists and Parliamentarians had similar views on family organization and women's political rights and maybe they didn't... the author doesn't actually resolve that question either way. We don't really know, so we can't choose (D).

I hope that helps!

G

preetamsaha

Senior Manager

Joined: 14 Oct 2019

Status:Today a Reader; Tomorrow a Leader.

Posts: 343

Own Kudos [?]: 390 [0]

Given Kudos: 127

Location: India

GPA: 4

WE:Engineering (Energy and Utilities)

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

09 May 2020, 23:12

GMATNinja
please explain the meaning of "tension" with a suitable example. does the word "tension" simply mean "difference" ?

B

saby1410

Manager

Joined: 06 Feb 2017

Posts: 194

Own Kudos [?]: 19 [0]

Given Kudos: 92

Location: India

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

18 May 2020, 14:19

Hi,
GMATNinja VeritasKarishma mikemcgarry
Some historians have questioned the facile equation of Royalist ideology with Filmerian patriarchalism; and indeed, there may have been no consistent differences between Royalists and Parliamentarians on issues of family organization and women’s political rights, but in that case one would expect early feminists to be equally divided between the two sides.

can you explain the above line and what role does it plays with whole passage.

L

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Posts: 7056

Own Kudos [?]: 65058 [4]

Given Kudos: 1835

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51

GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

31 May 2020, 11:59

4

Kudos

Expert Reply

preetamsaha wrote:

GMATNinja
please explain the meaning of "tension" with a suitable example. does the word "tension" simply mean "difference" ?

holyjohn is exactly right! For further discussion of the word "tension" in this context, check out this post as well.

saby1410 wrote:

Hi,
GMATNinja VeritasKarishma mikemcgarry
Some historians have questioned the facile equation of Royalist ideology with Filmerian patriarchalism; and indeed, there may have been no consistent differences between Royalists and Parliamentarians on issues of family organization and women’s political rights, but in that case one would expect early feminists to be equally divided between the two sides.

can you explain the above line and what role does it plays with whole passage.

I'll steal from my previous post to give some context to this sentence. Here's the beginning of the passage:

Quote:

It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century English women who are generally regarded as among the forerunners of modern feminism are almost all identified with the Royalist side in the conflict between Royalists and Parliamentarians known as the English Civil Wars.

The author immediately tells us two things here:

The forerunners of modern feminism are almost all identified with Royalists.
This is odd.

Next, the author spells out why this is odd:

Quote:

Since Royalist ideology is often associated with the radical patriarchalism of seventeenth century political theorist Robert Filmer—a patriarchalism that equates family and kingdom and asserts the divinely ordained absolute power of the king and, by analogy, of the male head of the household—historians have been understandably puzzled by the fact that Royalist women 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.

Royalist ideology is often associated with Filmer's partriarchalism.
Filmer's patriarchalism asserts the absolute power of the male in kingdom and family.
Yet, the earliest extended criticism of absolute subordination of women was done by Royalist women.

Now comes the sentence in question:

Quote:

Some historians have questioned the facile equation of Royalist ideology with Filmerian patriarchalism; and indeed, there may have been no consistent differences between Royalists and Parliamentarians on issues of family organization and women’s political rights, but in that case one would expect early feminists to be equally divided between the two sides.

To say that something is "facile" means that it looks neat and makes sense on the surface, but ignores the deeper complexities of the issue. So, "some historians" think that equating Royalist ideology with Filmerian patriarchalism is too simple -- maybe there isn't such a clean connection between an absolute sovereign and men having absolute power in the household. This implies that it might not actually be so odd that early feminists were Royalists.

But wait -- if there isn't a clean connection between the monarchy and power dynamics at home, then wouldn't we expect equal numbers of feminist Royalists and feminist Parliamentarians? This is the question that the author raises at the end of the sentence. This leaves the reader still questioning why early feminists were largely Royalists -- a question that the author obligingly answers in the next paragraph.

In all, the author:

Presents an odd fact
Tells us why it is so odd
Gives a reason why it might NOT be so odd after all (the Royalist/Filmerian connection is "facile")
Then reverses again and says no, it really is pretty odd (because if there was NO connection, one would expect equal numbers of Royalist/Parliamentarian feminists, which is not the case)
(In the second paragraph) gives the view of a particular historian that potentially explains the odd fact

I hope that helps!

B

ballest127

Manager

Joined: 18 Aug 2017

Posts: 116

Own Kudos [?]: 39 [0]

Given Kudos: 599

Send PM

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

26 Jun 2020, 20:06

Hi Experts,

Please help me on Question 5.

It asked to undermine the Gallegher's arguments.

Why C is correct?

Can we weaken argument just because it is not common or generally accepted by other people?

Please help explain.

Thank you.

gmatclubot

Re: It is an odd but indisputable fact that the seventeenth-century Englis [#permalink]

26 Jun 2020, 20:06

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

Prep Toolkit

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

My Rewards