Antonia Castañeda has utilized scholarship from women’s studies and Me

Please find the explanation of question #4 in the link below

https://gmatclub.com/forum/antonia-cast ... l#p2516676

Good Luck

Short answer is that A is very broad. For eg: Mex Americans men and their portrayal is barely discussed.

The focus of the passage is on how a particular stereotype was created, the laws that influenced them and why they got created (to rally support for a war). All this is crisply captured in C.

Great point by Ravi. Just to add my 2 cents, A is simply incorrect because the historical influences on depiction of mexican americans are not discussed anywhere. A and C might sound similar, but are actually very different choices. The entire passage revolves around the literary depictions of a particular group of women.

Q.4 answer please? I am unable to short list the answer for this question?

Hello, riyaajay. I have written a detailed analysis of question four earlier in the thread, here. Please let me know if you have further questions after reading it.

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

How quickly should be able to do all 4 questions (with passage reading) if he is targeting a score of 760?

GMATNinja - please can you help us explain question #4?
I reached out importantly to the right answer by point of elimination

This question is discussed by AndrewN here and VeritasKarishma here. Check out those posts and let us know if you have any further questions!

Hey Riya,

This is not an easy question by any means. There are already some solid explanations for this question on this forum. Let me try to address this, nevertheless. Hope this is helpful!

Let us understand the passage (keep the passage handy to visualize this better):

- AC's focus: How Mexican-American women were portrayed in 19th century literature.
- Observation 1: Male novelists depicted women solely in domestic roles (wife, mother).
- Context for Observation 1: This was a time when women's role in economic endeavors (say, agriculture) was threatened by industrialization. Non-Hispanic women got displaced from their roles due to industrialization. Implication: The depiction was probably a reflection of the time (women ending up solely in domestic roles, women depicted the same way).
- Observation 2: At the same time, Hispanic law protected Californianas (Mexican women of the area), ensured equality with men on property rights, inheritance (in essence, these women were economically in a good position).
- Think: How does the above sentence connect to what AC is doing? How does this connect to AC's study of how literature portrayed Mexican women? We do not know exactly at this point. All we know is that Hispanic women may have been in a good position at this time, the same time when Non-Hispanic women got subjugated economically to some extent. But, does this difference translate to a different depiction of Mexican women in literature? Maybe, maybe not. Let us read on to find out

- As per AC, the Hispanic laws, highlighted above indicate a literary stereotypical plot about Mexican women created by male, Non-Hispanic novelists. Now, we are back to AC's core focus: depiction of Mexican women in literature. Observation 2 seems to be setting context for us to understand the stereotype - something to do with the rich, well-off Mexican woman maybe? Let us move on.
- Stereotypical plot: ambitious Non-Hispanic merchant marrying an elite Californiana (Mexican woman of the area).
- Think: how is this depiction of women different from the depiction we saw in the first para -> there is a contrast here, this is a much more positive portrayal of women (the other delegated women to domestic!)
- Author says: The favorable/positive portrayal is noteworthy i.e. somehow interesting. Why? Because traditional depiction of Mexican-Americans was negative.
- Inherent Contradiction here: how Mexican-Americans were typically depicted in literature was negative, but these novels portray a more favorable depiction of Mexican Americans (women)
- Explanation provided for the contradiction: In reality, these women had some economic significance, thanks to the laws (see how that line connects back to depiction in literature), hence Non-Hispanics forged economic alliances with them through marriage, and last but not the least, this reality is depicted in the literature as a literary stereotype.


Summarizing the first para: (The historical context/history/origin which led to the stereotypical plot - Non Hispanic men marrying Californiana women due to their economic significance)
- AC focused on studying the depiction of Californianas (Mexican-American women) in 19th century literature
- The traditional depiction of women was purely in domestic roles (Non-Hispanics). Not economically significant, threatened by industrialization...
- But Californianas, thanks to Hispanic laws were economically in a significant position. This created the basis for the stereotype!

Summarizing the second para: (the explanation of the stereotypical plot - what it is, why it is noteworthy, what explains the contradiction it creates)
- The above laws are indicative of a particular literary stereotypical plot in literature - Non Hispanic men marrying Californiana women due to their economic significance)
- What makes this literary stereotype noteworthy - a contradiction
- Explanation for the contradiction created by the stereotype


The logical connect between the 2 paragraphs is simply that paragraph provides much of the historical context that led to a particular literary stereotype, and the second paragraph is an explanation of various aspects of the stereotype.


Hope this explanation helps a little bit to understand why option C is correct here.

Regards,
Harsha

Hi experts,

Please explain how to identify main idea of this passage?

Sajal12, please read the answer above your comment

You can read the post in the link below, I hope it will be helpful

https://gmatclub.com/forum/antonia-cast ... l#p2811970

Good luck

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

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:


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?


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.


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.


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.


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.


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 GMAT™ aspirants. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

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

Hello again, nkrnkr. I will respond to some of your specific points below.


I think these first two go hand in hand, really. Yes, you are wise to be aware of the some trap. But I think you may be conflating a stereotypical plot (to a story) with a common occurrence in real life, and that could be the root of your confusion. Consider a TV show such as Star Trek. Now, I could say that the stereotypical plot centers on the crew of a spaceship exploring the outer reaches of space; I could also contend that such a plot was based in part on real-life space exploration conducted in the 1960s, even if there were just a few such expeditions. In other words, since people in real life were able to explore the cosmos for the first time outside of Earth, it gave rise to science fiction in which people would explore deeper and deeper into outer space, what would become a common plot in a sci-fi TV show. I see this stereotypical Californiana plot the same way. Just knowing that laws existed that protected their property and inheritance rights (passage), and having evidence that some wealthy Californianas actually held large and valuable estates on their own (answer choice), lends credence to the notion that the plot in question had a basis in reality.

You cannot import wholesale your understanding of some in one question to the same word in another. You should always consider the context, and here, the some of (C) at least partially validates the explanation in question: more than one elite Californiana existed whose property rights were protected by the laws referred to. Maybe this situation fueled the creativity of authors who wrote the literature in the passage.

I am not sure from where you are drawing this exclusive daughter-of-an-elite-family interpretation in reference to the word Californiana. Maybe you had answer choice (A) on your mind from question 2, but nowhere does the passage itself use the word "daughter." As I wrote earlier, the laws outlined at the end of the first paragraph allowed Mexican women of the territory to own property free and clear of any ties to men. (I will grant that inheritance would have to refer to daughters, though, when we are told that Californianas had inheritance rights equal to those of males.)


I hope you can appreciate the distinction after my earlier post. If the answer choice says men, it means men. You cannot see only what you want to see.


I agree, other opinions are welcome. You might want to include IanStewart as well. He speaks his mind in a clear and direct manner, and his responses are well reasoned.

- Andrew

nkrnkr

3. Which of the following, if true, would provide the most support for Castañeda’s explanation of the “stereotypical plot” mentioned in lines 18-19?

What is the “stereotypical plot”?

Male, non-Hispanic novelists used to often write stories of ambitious non-hispanic merchants desirous of marrying elite Californianas.
Note that the plot was stereotypical. This means many such novels were written, mainly by male, non-hispanic novelists. The word stereotypical has not been associated with how many properties were owned by Californianas. Only the plot of the novels was stereotypical. Novelists liked to write about men wishing to marry the Californianas.

What is Castañeda’s explanation of the “stereotypical plot”?

Castañeda says that the Hispanic law in territorial California (which protected the economic position of "Californianas" by ensuring them property rights and inheritance rights equal to those of males) explains the often used plot.
Why did novelists write about traders wishing to marry Californianas? Why would it be commonplace for novelists to imagine men desiring to marry Californianas? Because Californianas had property and inheritance rights as per law. This is the explanation provided by Castañeda.

We need to strengthen Castañeda’s explanation. We need to say that the laws were the reason for the oft written "stereotypical plot”.

A. Non-Hispanic traders found business more profitable in California while it was a territory than when it became a state.
Irrelevant.

B. Very few marriages between Hispanic women and non-Hispanic men in nineteenth-century territorial California have actually been documented.
Irrelevant again. How many marriages actually happened doesn't matter. The explanation says that the law made the
Californianas desirable. So men wished to marry them. Whether they actually were able to, doesn't matter.
It is like stable boys wishing to marry Princesses. It's romantic and something novelists would write about. It explains the lure of Californianas. Because of the laws they found the Californianas desirable and hence dreamt of marrying them. It is the reason why romantic stories could be written about them.
How often it actually happened, doesn't matter.

C. Records from the nineteenth century indicate that some large and valuable properties were owned by elite Californianas in their own right.

Correct. So the explanation does seem to have merit. The law did lead to some Californianas owning valuable properties (while other women did not). This could have led to men wishing to marry them. Then, this could be why "men wishing to marry Californianas" was a stereotypical plot (perhaps the dream of many).

D. Unmarried non-Hispanic women in the nineteenth-century United States were sometimes able to control property in their own right.

Doesn't help strengthen why Hispanic law could explain the stereotypical novel plot.

E. Most of the property in nineteenth-century territorial California was controlled by Hispanic men.

Irrelevant to our argument. "Most" just means more than 50%. Even if most property was controlled by Hispanic men, we don't know whether Hispanic women controlled property or not.

Answer (C)