Q9

[Nina]

why is B incorrect? i think women's financial and political power narrated in the third paragraph can be regarded as the outcome of those legal events in paragraph 2.


thanks!

[noah]

For this sort of question, you want to refer to your passage map: passage-discussion-t7649.html

My prephrase would be that I'm getting details on how something (namely women getting control of land) could happen. (C) is pretty close!

As for the wrong answers:

(A) is unsupported since there are no specific events mentioned.

(B) is tempting, as the 3rd paragraph does discuss the effect of what's discussed in the 2nd paragraph. However, "effect" is different than "outcome." Outcome is what specifically happens (as in, "first X, then Y, and wouldn't you know it, Z was how it all worked out"). Furthermore, the paragraph is not a narration of a sequence of events--that would sound like "first X, then Y..." Instead, while we do hear of two laws, the paragraph overall is giving us details of how women could control land. Finally, the 2nd paragraph is going into detail about the thesis, laid out in the first paragraph, and this answer suggests (B) is best seen in relation to the 3rd paragraph.

(D) is wrong since the 2nd paragraph is about effects, if anything, it's about the causes of something.

(E) is a pretty easy elimination since there's no group making arguments in this passage.

[Law_SY]

For this sort of question, you want to refer to your passage map: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/pas ... t7649.html

My prephrase would be that I'm getting details on how something (namely women getting control of land) could happen. (C) is pretty close!

As for the wrong answers:

(A) is unsupported since there are no specific events mentioned.

(B) is tempting, as the 3rd paragraph does discuss the effect of what's discussed in the 2nd paragraph. However, "effect" is different than "outcome." Outcome is what specifically happens (as in, "first X, then Y, and wouldn't you know it, Z was how it all worked out"). Furthermore, the paragraph is not a narration of a sequence of events--that would sound like "first X, then Y..." Instead, while we do hear of two laws, the paragraph overall is giving us details of how women could control land. Finally, the 2nd paragraph is going into detail about the thesis, laid out in the first paragraph, and this answer suggests (B) is best seen in relation to the 3rd paragraph.

(D) is wrong since the 2nd paragraph is about effects, if anything, it's about the causes of something.

(E) is a pretty easy elimination since there's no group making arguments in this passage.

Hello! I was curious whether the 1215 Magna Carta could sufficiently be considered an "event," even though 9 (B) would be wrong anyway for discussing "a sequence of events" on top of emphasizing the wrong paragraph in relation to the second paragraph.

[ohthatpatrick]

Yes, it's fair to call the 1215 signing/establishment of the Magna Carta an event.

[HughM388]

Yes, it's fair to call the 1215 signing/establishment of the Magna Carta an event.

Not only an event, but a watershed event in English history. That's why (C) is at least as good as (A) and probably better. Magna Carta is considered a fairly sacrosanct thing in England. It has mythic status as a guarantor and symbol of English civil liberties (here we touch on an issue treated by the RC passage on English slavery abolition) so its power cannot be underestimated. As an event, the MC's original promulgation is considered in much the same way that Americans regard the signing of the Declaration of Independence as a signal event in the founding of the U.S. (though, in concept, our constitution is more analogous to MC; the English have no constitution, which is partly why MC is so important to them).

That fact that MC permitted widows to access their dower rights and to control their land independently, without fees and recourse to remarriage, is fundamental for the conclusion in paragraph three that English widows' legal independence and ability to amass property allowed them to hold dominion over large swathes of the land and its people in medieval England. Whatever event happened in 1272 to allow a widow to control not only dower lands but her husband's entire real estate is also fundamental to the subsequent conclusion.

Paragraph two provides an explanation for a small minority of the conditions discussed in paragraph one. It doesn't tell us why medievalists distinguish between public and private law, or why women were excluded from public roles, or why land equaled wealth in medieval England. Paragraph two does explain how certain women had autonomy in matters of property; but it does so much more for what happens in paragraph three. So while it does work for (A) it really sits up and works for (C).

[RobD987]

What threw me off with C) is the wording that it "could have occurred". Does paragraph 3 not state how it did occur, as opposed to how it "could have occurred" which sounds like 2 different things to me.