When Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands abdicated her throne in the

Question

When Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands abdicated her throne in the spring of 2013, ceding the monarchy to her son Willem-Alexander, she ended more than a century of rule by women in her country.

William I was the first king of the Netherlands, self-promoted in March 1815 after the defeat of Napoleon and the departure of the French. He had six children by his wife, Wilhelmina. After her death, desiring to remarry a Belgian Catholic woman, William I abdicated in 1840 and was succeeded by his eldest son, now William II, who ruled for only nine years before succumbing to illness and dying at the age of 56. William II was followed by William III, who managed to outlive three of his four children, meaning that by the time of his death in 1890, only daughter Wilhelmina was left to succeed him. Her mother, William III’s second wife Emma, was named regent, as Wilhelmina was then only 10 years old.

Wilhelmina was officially enthroned in 1898 and would go on to be the Netherlands’ longest ruling monarch. She abdicated in failing health after 57 years, ceding the throne to her only child (she had suffered a series of miscarriages and one stillbirth). That child, Juliana, herself went on to have four children, all of them girls, so it seemed clear that her successor would be the eldest of those girls, Beatrix. And in fact, Juliana abdicated in 1980, leaving the throne to Beatrix, the mother of three sons.

Beatrix was a popular monarch, despite her controversial marriage to a former member of the Hitler Youth. The marriage at the time was roundly despised by the Dutch, but they came around, apparently due to the sheer force of her husband’s personality. Regardless of her popularity, Beatrix’s abdication came as no surprise; abdication in favor of the younger generation has become something of a tradition for Dutch kings and queens, in contrast with the British monarchy, who tend to cling to their ceremonial roles for life.    1 
 1. Based on the passage, what made William II and William III different from William I and Queen Wilhelmina?

(A) They ceded the throne to daughters, not sons.
(B) They did not relinquish the throne to their offspring.
(C) They had good reasons for their abdications.
(D) They had children by more than one spouse.
(E) They served on the throne for far shorter periods.

2 
 2. The new king, Willem-Alexander, has three daughters. Based on this passage, were Willem-Alexander to have a fourth child who was male, which of the following would be true?

(A) He would pass down the title to his son.
(B) He would pass down the title to his eldest daughter.
(C) He would pass down the title to whichever child he chose.
(D) He would be honor-bound to abdicate the throne at that time.
(E) The passage does not give enough information to make this determination.

3 
 3. The author’s attitude toward the British monarchy could best be characterized as which of the following?

(A) Tolerant
(B) Sympathetic
(C) Deferential
(D) Critical
(E) Outraged

4 
 4. The author most likely mentions the Hitler Youth for what purpose?

(A) To show the tight bonds between the Dutch and the Germans
(B) To remind the reader that today’s Dutch rulers descend from the Germans
(C) To reveal an obstacle that Queen Beatrix had to overcome
(D) To point out historical prejudices that may still exist today
(E) To poke fun at the Dutch monarchy for its lack of discretion

5 
 5. Which of the following situations is most similar to Beatrix’s behavior in 2013?

(A) Estēe Lauder handing over the reins of her company to her son Leonard
(B) Kiichiro Toyoda spinning off Toyota Motors from his father’s company
(C) CEO Danny Wegman naming his daughters president and vice president
(D) Henry Ford taking back Ford Motor Company after son Edsel died
(E) Son-in-law F. X. Rice taking over Utz Company on the death of William Utz

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

1. Based on the passage, what made William II and William III different from William I and Queen Wilhelmina?

Explanation

(A) They ceded the throne to daughters, not sons: 
This option is not supported by the passage. The passage does not provide information about the gender of the children who succeeded William I and Queen Wilhelmina. It only mentions that William II and William III did not relinquish the throne to their offspring.

(B) They did not relinquish the throne to their offspring:  
This is the correct answer. The passage mentions that William I abdicated in 1840 and was succeeded by his eldest son, William II. However, it does not mention any abdication or succession of the throne from William II or William III to their offspring. This sets them apart from William I and Queen Wilhelmina, who did pass on the throne to their children.

(C) They had good reasons for their abdications: 
The passage does not provide information about the reasons for the abdications of William I, William II, or William III. Therefore, this option cannot be determined from the given passage.

(D) They had children by more than one spouse: 
The passage does not provide information about the number of spouses or the children's parentage for William I, William II, or William III. Therefore, this option cannot be determined from the given passage.

(E) They served on the throne for far shorter periods: This option is not supported by the passage. 
The passage does not provide any specific information about the length of reign for each monarch, except for mentioning that Queen Wilhelmina ruled for 57 years. Without further information, it cannot be concluded that William II and William III served on the throne for far shorter periods than William I and Queen Wilhelmina.

Answer: B

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

5. Which of the following situations is most similar to Beatrix’s behavior in 2013?

Explanation

(A) Estēe Lauder handing over the reins of her company to her son Leonard.  
This option describes the situation where Estēe Lauder, a prominent figure in a company, passes on the leadership of the company to her son Leonard. The passage discusses the abdication of Queen Beatrix and the tradition of passing on leadership to the younger generation, making this option a suitable comparison.

(B) Kiichiro Toyoda spinning off Toyota Motors from his father's company. 
This option describes a situation where Kiichiro Toyoda, the son of the founder of Toyota Motors, separates the company from his father's company. While it involves a transfer of responsibility, it does not align with the context of abdication or passing on leadership within a family or monarchy, as mentioned in the passage.

(C) CEO Danny Wegman naming his daughters president and vice president. 
This option refers to the scenario where CEO Danny Wegman appoints his daughters as president and vice president of the company. Although it involves a family business and a transfer of roles, it does not correspond to the abdication of a monarch or the passing on of leadership to a younger generation as discussed in the passage.

(D) Henry Ford taking back Ford Motor Company after son Edsel died. 
This option presents a situation where Henry Ford, the founder of Ford Motor Company, resumes control of the company after his son Edsel's death. While it involves a transfer of authority within a family business, it does not align with the concept of abdication or passing on leadership within a monarchy, as mentioned in the passage.

(E) Son-in-law F. X. Rice taking over Utz Company on the death of William Utz. 
This option describes the scenario where F. X. Rice, the son-in-law of William Utz, assumes control of Utz Company following William Utz's passing. Although it involves a transfer of leadership within a family business, it does not correspond to the abdication of a monarch or the passing on of leadership to a younger generation as discussed in the passage.

Based on the passage's focus on abdication and passing on leadership within a monarchy, the most appropriate option is (A) Estēe Lauder handing over the reins of her company to her son Leonard.

Answer: A

ducchi1301 · Answer

2. The new king, Willem-Alexander, has three daughters. Based on this passage, were Willem-Alexander to have a fourth child who was male, which of the following would be true?

(A) He would pass down the title to his son. 
 (B) He would pass down the title to his eldest daughter. 
 (C) He would pass down the title to whichever child he chose. 
(D) He would be honor-bound to abdicate the throne at that time.
  (E) The passage does not give enough information to make this determination. (This would be fair, as there would be external factors that can influence the result.)

4. The author most likely mentions the Hitler Youth for what purpose?

(A) To show the tight bonds between the Dutch and the Germans 
 (B) To remind the reader that today’s Dutch rulers descend from the Germans 
  (C) To reveal an obstacle that Queen Beatrix had to overcome (This is correct. Beside being a popular monarch, she is disguised by numerous people for her marrying Hitler Youth.)   
 (D) To point out historical prejudices that may still exist today  (No historical prejudices and its long-lasting impact are implied.)  
 (E) To poke fun at the Dutch monarchy for its lack of discretion

Apoorva800 · Answer

KarishmaB  Will be really helpful if you could explain question 2. Shouldn't the answer be Eldest child? (as this is the pattern)

Thank You!

KarishmaB · Answer

No, the passage doesn't tell us what happens if the current ruler has elder daughters and younger sons. All examples given tell us how the previous ruler had either only sons or only daughters (surviving) and eldest of them took the throne. But what happens when there are both?

Dreamer101 · Answer

Can someone please explain Q3? I don't understand how we interpreted British Monarchy as Critical.

guddo · Answer

3. The author’s attitude toward the British monarchy could best be characterized as which of the following?

The relevant phrase is that British monarchs “tend to cling to their ceremonial roles for life.” The word “cling” has a negative tone. It suggests the author sees the British monarchy as reluctant to give up power or status.  So the attitude is mildly critical , not neutral or admiring.

(A) Tolerant

This is too neutral. The wording “cling to” shows some disapproval.

(B) Sympathetic

This is incorrect. The author does not express understanding or support for the British monarchy.

(C) Deferential

This is incorrect. The author is not showing respect or reverence.

(D) Critical

This is correct. The phrase “cling to their ceremonial roles for life” indicates a critical attitude.

(E) Outraged

This is too strong. The author is critical, but not angry or outraged.

Answer: (D)

egmat · Answer

Hi Dreamer101,

Your instinct to look for  outrage  is exactly why D feels off, but the author's attitude here is much quieter than that. Let me point you to the one place it lives.

The British monarchy is mentioned only once, in the final sentence:

The whole answer rides on that one word: "cling."  Tone questions are decided by the author's word choice, not by how much space the topic gets. "Cling" is not a neutral verb - you cling to something stubbornly, past the point you should let go. Pair it with "ceremonial" (a subtle way of saying the role is for show), and the author is gently knocking the British for holding on too long. That mild disapproval is exactly what  Critical  captures.

Why not the others

Run the choices along a scale from positive to negative:

-  Tolerant / Sympathetic / Deferential  - all lean neutral-to-positive. Nothing in "cling to their ceremonial roles for life" is approving, so these are out.
-  Outraged (E)  - this is the trap. Outrage needs strong, angry language ("absurd," "shameful," a real attack). One disapproving verb is nowhere near that heat.
-  Critical (D)  - mild, pointed disapproval. That fits "cling" perfectly.

The move to remember

Tone sits on a dial, and you pick the  strength  that matches the words. Try it: if the sentence had said the British " graciously maintain  their ceremonial roles," the attitude flips toward positive. If it said they " shamefully refuse to ever step aside ," now you're closer to Outraged. The author chose "cling" - one notch of disapproval, no more. That single notch is  Critical .

So D isn't about the author being angry; it's about that one loaded word doing quiet, negative work.

Answer: D

When Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands abdicated her throne in the

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

When Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands abdicated her throne in the

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards