Q27

[MattS781]

Hello,

Can someone help explain to me why A is correct and not E? From my perspective, the passage never says that certain qualities (those of men) are detrimental, just that they can no longer be the society's primary qualities and that women need to have an equal role in society from here on out. That perspective lead me to answer E, since if women are inevitably going to become more and more essential in society, than those qualities that they possess will be too.

[ohthatpatrick]

Remember that the easiest way to identify most wrong answers is just by finding wording that seems too strong.

(A) "some" ... super safe

(B) "can no longer be _____ except through ____ " ... strong, scary

(C) "will probably be especially difficult" ... medium strong, not the worst

(D) "they can be useful" .... super safe

(E) "will lead inevitably" .... crazy strong, very scary


The fact that (A) is being vague and not giving you the explicit idea of what's it's alluding to is a quality that makes it seem very much like a correct answer to me.

To make an incorrect answer seem appealing, they use familiar wording/terms to entice us (and hope we don't notice the strong or comparative wording that is unsupportable).

To make a correct answer seem unappealing, they use synonyms / paraphrases / vague generalities so that it doesn't immediately seem to resemble something we read.

If I say, "At one time, we needed X for social progress. But future progress requires ~X", then it's fair to say that continuing to have X would be detrimental.

If we need "cooperation and nurturance" to achieve a goal, then "assertiveness and combat" are detrimental to our efforts, since they are logical opposites of "cooperation and nurturance".


(A) Correct. Supported by 49-56

(B) Too strong. "Genuine" social evolution can no longer be brought about except through specific intentions? Can't find a line reference for that.

(C) New comparison. Can't find a line reference that makes hierarchical seem more important / more historical / more entrenched than gender-specific work roles.

(D) Opposite. Gilman interpreted Social Darwinism in a way that gave her ethical imperatives.

(E) Too strong. Can't find language to support "will lead inevitably". There is the idea that more cooperation and nurturance is "now required" for "future progress", but this answer choice is worded in a such a timeless, permanent, categorical fashion that it's a way scarier idea to support than (A)'s.

[TiffanyH940]

I was also confused between choice A and E. For A, I didn't like "detrimental" as well, because the passage said in line 54, that further progress "required the restoration of a balance". I don't think it implies that the male traits are unneeded, maybe just less of them.

For E, I thought line 54-56 supports that further progress "requires" cooperation and nurturance. Thus, choice E's "lead inevitably to the inclusion of more cooperation and nurturance" is more supported than A.

[Yu440]

Hi, I chose E unfortunately. I thought the "detrimental" was scary in A.

Can E also be eliminated because it says "continuation of the process of social evolution" rather than "progress"? Because process can be stagnant right? If we just want a stagnant process, then cooperation and nurturance in social arrangements.

[ohthatpatrick]

Detrimental just means "negative", at any level.

Jumping off a building is detrimental to your health.
But so is smoking a single cigarette.

They're detrimental to vastly different degrees, but they both impart at least some negativity, so you can call either one detrimental.

If future progress depends on restoring the balance between assertiveness/combat and nurturing/cooperation via more nurturing/cooperation, then assertiveness/combat is detrimental (has at least some negative effect) on progress.

=====

In regards to (E), I'll admit I'm confused about it too. I think it's too supported an answer to be wrong, even though it is definitely a recklessly strong-worded answer to pick on LSAT.

Maybe you're right that they see a gap between "continuation of the process" vs. "progress in relation to the process". I just have a hard time believing that because the process we're talking about is evolution. Can you continue the process of evolving and not call that progress?

But I think that is what they were going for: a disconnect between saying in the passage that "X would be required for Y to happen" and saying in the answer "continuing the process of striving for Y will lead inevitably to X".

The passage is trying to say, "in order to get somewhere BETTER with evolution, we'd NEED to have cooperation/nurturance",

and the answer is saying, "as we continue evolution, we are GUARANTEED of getting better (i.e. of having cooperation/nurturance)"

I think we're getting bogged down in a literal definition of 'progress', which could mean anything ... advancing to the next day / next year / next decade, and a figurative definition of 'progress', which would mean 'reaching a BETTER place'.

If we interpret Gilman's comments as saying, "in order to get to a BETTER PLACE, we'd need X",
then we can reject (E) by saying, "as we continue to evolve, there's no guarantee we'll get to the better place".

[XiaoranZ794]

In my opinion, by saying "required", G suggests that the female qualities will help bring about future progress, and thus the female qualities are part of the cause. But "inevitably lead to" infers that the continuation of progress is the cause of these femal qualities. This may be a subtle causation flaw. isn't it?

[Misti Duvall]

In my opinion, by saying "required", G suggests that the female qualities will help bring about future progress, and thus the female qualities are part of the cause. But "inevitably lead to" infers that the continuation of progress is the cause of these femal qualities. This may be a subtle causation flaw. isn't it?

Hmm, I'm not sure about that, but for RC questions it's best to focus on whether or not the answer is supported by the information in the passage rather than analyzing the reasoning like you would in LR. Patrick provides a good explanation above for why (E) is not supported.

[XiduoH792]

Have a question about Q27 AC (D)
line6-9 seem to support that Darwin's theory didn't directly apply to social ideology (descriptive), but intellectuals translated into social language (ethical messages).