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

daagh, GMATPill

Why is D wrong of Qs 2?
We know royalists and parliamentarian have similar views on issues of family organization and rights. Throughout the first para, it was mentioned how feminists' view are not aligned with royalists but modern feminism identify with Royalists leading to a puzzling situation. From that, I can infer the views of feminists and royalists will not be same for sure. Is option wrong because 'diametrically opposite' too strong since we don't the exact stance of feminists on issues of family organization and women political rights?

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.


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!
_________________

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

Took almost 19 Mins (Was trying digital writing pad + wanted to understand the passage in detail)
got 5/6 correct.
Is it a good way to start the preparation? or should I put more emphasis on timing?

Thanks in advance

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.

No, it's not simply a difference. Tension refers to conflicts, with a hint of straining, uncomfortableness, or stresses. So if you have a tension between two groups, there are differences between them that cause difficulties.

10:26 minutes in total, 5/6 correct.

Posted from my mobile device

My two cents on why (D) is correct:

1. We are told
- I asked myself why is this odd?

2. We are then told
- Ok, this is why it is "odd", Royalist ideology is associated with Robert Filmer who "asserts the divinely odained absolute power... of the male head of the household".

This seems like an "apparent tension" to me, hence why it is odd that feminists are mostly Royalists. How can feminists in the 17th century be Royalists if Royalist ideology is associated with Robert Filmer's ideas? Answer choice (D) is correct.

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


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

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:

• 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:

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!
_________________

Who supports what?
Royal ideologies vs. Parliamentarians proclamation?

Feminism vs. Patriarchalism

Theme of this pasaage

time spent 18 minutes, 2 out 6 correct;

My GMAT strategy? Skip the entire passage. If you are lucky, you would have gotten at least 1 correct in a matter of seconds.

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.

Hi

Let us analyze what is asked in Q5.

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

Now, let us examine the passage to find this "link" between Royalism and feminism, which is explained by Gallagher. This is found in the first sentence of the second paragraph, which states the following:

Catherine Gallagher argues that Royalism engendered feminism because the ideology of absolute monarchy provided a transition to an ideology of the absolute self.

Therefore, to undermine Gallagher's explanation, we need an answer option that tells us that the ideology of absolute monarchy did not provide a transition to an ideology of the absolute self for the early Royalist feminists (since this is the sample that is being sought to be explained). With this in mind, let us analyze the answer options:

(A) Because of their privileged backgrounds, Royalist women were generally better educated than were their Parliamentarian counterparts. This does not address the transition to "absolute self" in any way. Eliminate.

(B) Filmer himself had read some Cavendish's early writings and was highly critical of her ideas. This does not address the transition to "absolute self" in any way. Eliminate.

(C) Cavendish's views were highly individual and were not shared by other Royalist women who wrote early feminist works. This beautifully addresses the issue at hand. It states that the highly individual views of Cavendish were not shared by other Royalist women who wrote early feminist works. Margaret Cavendish is presented as a strong example of the way that monarchy provided a transition to absolute self, and this option tells us that her views were not shared by other Royalist feminists. Therefore, the "transition to absolute self" explanation for why Royalist women took to feminism stands broken, since many Royalist women did not agree with the ideology of "absolute self" (as explained by their opposition to Cavendish's "highly individual" views). Correct answer.

(D) The Royalist and Parliamentarian ideologies were largely in agreement on issues of family organization and women's political rights. This does not address the transition to "absolute self" in any way. Eliminate.

(E) The Royalist side included a sizable minority faction that was opposed to the more radical tendencies of Filmerian patriarchalism. This does not address the transition to "absolute self" in any way. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.
_________________

I selected option B. "qualify...form the basis.....". The reason I chose this option is because of 3-4 words in the passage(highlighted in yellow below). The passage says :

"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"

Reasoning to select Option B: 1. Royalist ideology is linked to radical patriarchalism by the use of 'associated' and 'since'- some time in past, and the gentleman Robert Filmer is explaining this after a '-', and thus in a way is qualifying the preceding line.
2. Since its location specific question, not to refer to the whole passage for answering this particular question.



Please tell GMATNinja GMATNinjatwo, the reasons to dismiss option B.

For Question#2,



I was confused between option B and option D, but unfortunately I ended up choosing option B, since in the last sentence of the passage, it is mentioned that -



Hence they did not "openly challenge" the radical patriarchalism of Royalist Filmerian ideology. (as stated in option B). After going through all the comments on this thread, I understood why option E is correct, but I am still not 100% convinced regarding the reason why option B is incorrect.

VeritasKarishma egmat GMATNinja mikemcgarry sayantanc2k - Experts, please help me out. Also, if possible, kindly provide any tips/insights on how to avoid such confusion.

AndrewN VeritasKarishma generis GMATNinja AjiteshArun

Need your help on below question.

Hi warrior1991,

We can't go from "they took the Royalist side" to "they did not openly oppose (the radical patriarchalism of) Royalist ideology". That is, it is possible that they questioned certain aspects of the side that they identified with. That's what the Margaret Cavendish example is about (Royalism → feminism).
_________________

Hello, warrior1991. In addition to what AjiteshArun added above, I believe GMATNinja has done a fine job breaking down this question earlier in the thread, quoting relevant sentences from the first paragraph. If you still need help after reading these explanations, I can chime in.

Thank you for thinking to ask me. (I was busy today, so I was late on the draw.)

- Andrew
_________________

Question 1

To "qualify a claim" means to add reservations to that claim, or to make it less absolute. If someone claims that it's a beautiful day for a picnic, she could qualify that claim by saying, "It's a beautiful day for a picnic... unless it starts snowing."

You're right that Robert Filmer's patriarchalism is associated with Royalist ideology. Keeping in mind the definition of "qualify," it doesn't make sense that the author refers to Filmer in order to add reservations to the link between patriarchalism and Royalist ideology.

You can eliminate (B) for question 1.

I hope that helps!
_________________