Q21

[ZarkaS555]

Hi, could someone please explain why A is incorrect?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, sorry for the terrible delay. For the sake of others, I'll give a more complete answer than just (A).

This is a Main Point question, so I'm going to prephrase (predict a correct answer) based on thinking about the author's central topic / purpose / takeaway.

Her topic was Gilman, and on a secondary level Social Darwinism. Her purpose was to describe which version of SD Gilman subscribed to and to flesh out what Gilman's beliefs were in that regard.

The takeaway: Gilman though that animal evolution (including predominantly male traits) had been useful thus far in getting humanity to its bad-ass present state, but now that we're wise enough to understand evolution we can start planning our own, and the optimal next stage would involve more female traits / empowerment.

THE ANSWERS
(A) "central doctrine" sounds pretty extreme, but I otherwise don't mind it. Can I find any textual support capable of supporting that Gilman's theory was the CENTRAL doctrine to the latter type of Darwinism?

Not really. I can see that she was widely read and discussed and played an important role in the debate (line 3-5), but that doesn't single her work out as the central doctrine. And in line 23, I see them actually NAME the "central thesis" of this latter type of Social Darwinism, and this sentence is not ascribing this central thesis to Gilman's theory.


(B) This feels muddy. She aligned with one flavor of SD and rejected some of the other flavor's doctrines, but this sounds like it was Gilman vs. SD, when the passage was more like Gilman's SD vs. the other kind of SD. Also, I don't think Gilman ever called for "gender equality" (just the abolishment of gender-specific work roles).


(C) I can't get past the first clause ... "unlike MOST SD's of her time"? I don't think they ever set her apart from 51% or more of SD's.


(D) I don't see anything objectionable here.

(E) I don't think the author's purpose was to make sure that Gilman ALSO gets recognition for writing on social issues. The purpose was to describe Gilman and her version of SD.

Looks like (D) is the best answer.

Hope this helps.

[abrenza123]

I spent a long time between A and D because I kept misreading A as "contributed TO the central doctrine..."

if it said that, would that have made A a stronger answer?? The author said her writings played an important role in the debate in the first paragraph..

[ohthatpatrick]

for sure, "contributed TO" is way less extreme than "contributed THE".

However, I'm not sure you can really find any causal language at all that even supports that Gilman had some effect in forming the central doctrine of Type 2 Social Darwinism.

Lines 21 - 25 say
"Gilman identified herself with this latter camp"

This group had a central thesis (line 23), and Gilman identified herself with this group.

It sounds like the camp/thesis was already established, and Gilman said "Yup, I agree with THAT camp and its central doctrine"

Elizabeth Warren could play an important role in the debate about "Medicare for All" and its application to societies, but that doesn't mean she played any role in contributing to its central doctrine (someone else wrote that bill ... she is just now campaigning in support of it).

[JasminL758]

I am reading all the explanations and still don't know why C is wrong. To me "unlike most Social Darwinists of her time" is supported by line 31 - 33, which seems to indicate Gilman was unique in her time by being the first and probably the only (or at least one of the few) one to see the issues involved in the debate as transcending abstract theoretical concerns and having important social implications.