GMAT Ninja RC Ep 4: How to Tackle Humanities Passages on the GMAT Focus & EA

[@ananyachaudhary5338]

Hello GMAT Ninja Team, I gave my GMAT exam today and got a score of 710. Your video lectures were a massive help. Your entire team is Godsent.

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Thank you for making our day, Ananya! Congratulations on the absolutely beautiful score. I'm thrilled that we've been able to help a bit -- thank you so much for reaching out with such a kind post. Good luck with your applications, and let us know where you land for grad school!

[@bitankumarmani7339]

Hey Ananya, can you please mention what all resources you used to get that score?

[@aanshishrivastava8294]

Gmat club- you can find official LSAT passages

[@anshlaroia9443]

Hey Ananya! First of all congrats on the great score! :D Can you please share whether you prepared for RC other than these videos? and if so, how did you prepare and from where? Thanks in advance for your reply :)

[@Cb25]

Excellent analysis and explanation, Alex! I really appreciate the way Alex thoroughly analyzes each of the answer choices in the way that simulates how one who is not pre-exposed to the correct answer choice would. Other GMAT Ninja tutor would hugely benefit from Alex's approach of tackling each answer choices as if they are all equally likely to be a prospect correct answer. To illustrate this, at 23:48 question 3 'stereotypical plot thing' he tries to think how the answer choice A would fit into the question rather than dismissing it as irrelevant to the question and marking it incorrect We need more Alex :D

[@tamarapaz4160]

thank you!! I would end up being so detailed and take 7 minutes reading humanities passages, whereas concentrating on the purpose definitely helps. Thanks gmat ninja team!

[@GRENinjaTutoring]

So glad to hear you found the video helpful!!

[@basharabuein409]

Hello, in passage 2 Q2 (D), you asked "are they opposed to Royalist ideology in general"? But the question is not comparing the entire ideologies but rather the views on family organization and political rights within these ideologies to feminists' views on family orgs. and political rights. We already know the Royalist view, and the passage briefly mentions the Parliamentary view: "there may have been no consistent differences between Royalists and Parliamentarians on issues of family organization and women's political rights". Thanks a lot!

[@Rileyyijiao]

Same. I'm not sure E is better than D since the passage did not mention details about parliamentarians. So we cannot conclude that English feminists' association with the parliament would be less odd than that with the Royalism.

[@kanishksinghal2327]

In the question 3 of the first comprehension, I believe that A is a much better option than C, because A) C doesn't at all talk about the plot that marriages are taking place between non hispanic merchants and Californianas B) In A, in which it states "while California was a territory than when it became a state", I think it is pointing out the line that the law was made when California was a territory (as the para 1 also mentions), and it also is an explanation for the plot as the businesses were more profitable as they were married to rich Californianas

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Thank you for this question Kanishk! You raise a really good point - answer (C) does not directly mention marriages between Californianas and non-Hispanic traders. So how does it support Castaneda’s explanation of the “stereotypical plot?” Well, Castaneda thinks that the law which ensured Californianas inheritance and property rights explains the stereotypical plot. In other words, if Californianas were more likely to inherit valuable property because of this law, this could make them attractive as spouses to ambitious traders. But just because this law was in place doesn’t necessarily mean that Californianas really DID inherit valuable property. What if the properties they inherited weren’t all that valuable? Or what if some other legal issue interfered with their inheritance? If that were the case, it would weaken Castaneda’s explanation. Notice that (C) deals with this potential issue. Because if Californianas owned “large and valuable properties,” this suggests that they really did benefit from inheritance rights, and that they possessed wealth which might attract ambitious merchants. This certainly doesn’t prove that Castaneda’s explanation was correct. And I don’t love the fact that it doesn’t mention non-hispanic traders. On the other hand, since it does provide some support, we should hold on to (C). Let’s now examine (A). As you point out, (A) does mention non-Hispanic traders, as the stereotypical plot does. But does it support the idea that they sought to marry Californianas because of their wealth? To draw that conclusion, we’d need to make some leaps. First, notice that (C) doesn’t actually tell us whether non-Hispanic merchants found businesses highly profitable when California was a territory. It just tells us these businesses were MORE profitable when California was a territory. In other words, it gives us a relative comparison, but we don’t really know if these businesses were really profitable (in absolute terms) when California was a territory. But even if businesses were really, really profitable for non-Hispanic traders when California was a territory, it’s unclear how this relates to Californianas. Did Californianas lose their inheritance rights when California became a state? Notice the passage doesn’t address this, so we really can’t speculate on this. Additionally, would marrying an elite Californiana cause a merchant to have a profitable business? That would require a bit of a leap. Just because a merchant married a wealthy woman wouldn’t necessarily make his business more profitable. It might make him richer, but we can’t conclude that being richer would make his business more profitable. For all those reasons, (A) requires too many leaps to support Castaneda’s explanation, so we can eliminate it. And while (C) certainly doesn’t prove that Castaneda’s explanation was correct, it does provide support, which makes it a better answer. Thanks again for this question, Kanishk. Let me know if that helps, or if there’s any other way we can help at all!

[@iamrohandatta]

​@@GMATNinjaTutoring​Thank you for the detailed explanation. I was very confused initially on why A was not the better choice, but your explanations sheds a lot of light.Thanks again!

[@realdiegobartolome]

It's interesting to think about how in that last reading comprehension, if the modifier at the beginning about how puzzling it actually was, if that had just been changed slightly it Would have changed the answers to two questions.

[@ShaadMulla]

RC1 Q3 is a good example of why not to seek answers that are likely to be extremes. Even a decent support answer is good to go.

[@basharabuein409]

Hello! Thanks a lot! In passage 2, Q1 I chose B, but you said that it is wrong because the author linked Filmer to Royalist ideology and did not "qualify the claim". Isn't saying "qualifying the claim" the same as "establishing the link" between Filder and Royalism? The author claimed that they are linked together or based on each other. I am a bit puzzled by the wording :(

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

That's a great question! What does it mean to qualify a claim? In fact, to "qualify" a claim means to express some reservations about that claim. Or, put another way, to modify and weaken a claim. For instance, let's say that a fitness instructor makes the statement that "all exercise is healthy." I might object by saying "but if you lift really heavy weights, that might hurt your back. That's not healthy!" The fitness instructor might then reply by qualifying her original claim. She might say, "Okay, not all exercise is healthy. Rather, exercise that is done in a responsible way is healthy." In the above case, you could say that the fitness instructor's second statement "qualifies" her first statement. That is, she modifies and weakens her original claim. She's no longer saying that "all exercise is healthy," but merely that "responsible exercise is healthy." She qualified her original claim. Notice that the author doesn't qualify (i.e. modify and weaken) the claim that patriarchalism formed the basis of royalist ideology. In fact, the author presents Filmer to support this idea. For that reason, (B) is incorrect. I hope that helps!

[@cijingeorge5983]

Hello, Thank you for taking out your precious time and creating such amazing videos. I have a doubt in passage 2, Q.2 - I am not sure why option E is preferred over D. It is stated in passage the 'there may have been no consistent differences between Royalists and Parliamentarians on issues of family organization and women’s political rights'. Could you please help me in understanding why D is incorrect as I was under the impression that feminists were opposing both.

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Great question! As you suggest, the passages implies that the "women mentioned in line 2" are opposed to the "radical patriarchalism" of Robert Filmer. And because Filmer was associated with the Royalist side, it's odd that many of these women were associated with this Royalist side (as opposed to the Parliamentarian side). So what's wrong with (D)? Question 2: The passage suggests which of the following about the seventeenth-century English women mentioned in line 2? D: Their views on family organization and women's political rights were diametrically opposed to those of both Royalist and Parliamentarian ideology. Well, as you point out, the passage tells us that "there may have been no consistent differences between Royalists and Parliamentarians on issues of family organization and women’s political rights." So does that mean that the Parliamentarians were also into "radical patriarchalism?" Because if they were, then the feminists would definitely oppose them, right? In which case (D) would be correct? The problem is, this line doesn't really mean that the Parliamentarians actually were into patriarchalism. Notice that the previous line tells us that "Some historians have questioned the facile equation of Royalist ideology with Filmerian patriarchalism." So basically, some historians think the Royalists were NOT really into patriarchalism. And if the Royalists weren't into patriarchalism, then maybe both side had the same views on women's rights (i.e. there were "no consistent differences"). In other words, according to some historians, it COULD be that neither the Royalists nor the Parliamentarians were that into patriarchalism, in which case the feminists wouldn't really oppose either side. So based on that, (D) can't be right. Put another way, if the Royalists were into patriarchalism, then the feminists should oppose them. But some historians have suggested that neither side was really into patriarchalism, so it COULD be that the feminists didn't really oppose either the Royalists or the Parliamentarians. But the passage never suggests that both sides were into patriarchalism, so the feminists wouldn't oppose both sides. But what about (E)? E: Historians would be less puzzled if more of them were identified with the Parliamentarian side in the English Civil Wars. Well, the passage tells us it's "odd" that these feminists were almost all identified with Royalist side. So if more of them were associated with the Parliamentarian side, it would be less "odd" (i.e. less puzzling). So (E) is correct. Thanks for this question, and let me know if that helps!

[@adki7559]

Hi Alex, thanks for the video. I just wanted to point out that in Question 3, in my opinion of course, one could understand the question in a way that E seems to be the right answer. Let me elaborate: question reads: "support for the plot" - for something to be a plot, it needs to be other than the truth. As I understood, the author only constructed this plot of elitist Californianas. But actually, they did not exist. Therefore I eliminated C and concluded that E was the right answer. Hope this helps. If there is anything I obviously missed in the section please let me know. Best, ADKI

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Hi ADKI, Thank you for this comment! You’re correct that a “plot” generally refers to a fictional story. But a fictional plot can have a basis in reality, even if the plot itself is not strictly speaking “true.” In fact, that is exactly what Castaneda is arguing here. More specifically, Castaneda thinks that a real-life law influenced the fictional (or made-up) plots created by male, non-hispanic novelists. Put another way, Castaneda thinks the law created a certain situation (i.e. elite Californiana’s were given certain property and inheritance rights), and this law inspired novelists to write plots about non-hispanic merchants seeking to marry elite Californianas for their wealth. Returning to Question 3: the right answer should provide support for Castaneda’s explanation of the “stereotypical plot” mentioned in the passage. Note that answer choice C tells us that some elite Californianas owned large and valuable properties. If this were true, it suggests that the the property laws Castaneda mentioned really DID cause certain elite Californianas to become wealthy. Since Castaneda’s argument about stereotypical plots rests on the idea that elite Californianas had wealth that made them attractive to certain ambitious merchants, answer choice (C) supports this argument, which makes it correct. Thanks and let me know if that helps!

[@srilanka739]

the issue with Q1 in passage 2 is that it sort of implies that it would be less odd if MORE of them associated with parliamentarians but that might mean that they'd be less surprised if the majority associated with parliamentarians Got stuck between D and E AbC were easy to eliminate

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Thanks for this Sri lanka! Is it possible you were asking about Q2 in passage 2? If so, here are some thoughts on D vs E. Let’s start with (D): D) Their views on family organization and women's political rights were diametrically opposed to those of both Royalist and Parliamentarian ideology. The passage doesn’t tell us what views the Parliamentarians held on family organization and women’s political rights. Since we don’t have enough information to say whether (D) is true, it must be wrong. Let’s now consider (E): E) Historians would be less puzzled if more of them were identified with the Parliamentarian side in the English Civil Wars. The passage tells us that historians are surprised about a certain historical fact - namely, that the forerunners of feminism were almost all associated with the Royalists, not the Parliamentarians. This is odd because the Royalists were associated with non-feminist (i.e. patriarchal) ideas. So if more of the women mentioned in line 2 were identified with the Parliamentarian side (i.e. if fewer were associated with the Royalist side) historians would be less puzzled. I hope that helps!

[@hikatube808]

Thank you for the video For Passage 1, Q4: I was stuck between A & C, and chose A. Isn't C way too broad of a purpose? While A says "Mexican American" (& doesn't narrow down to women or Californiana), C is so broad and ambiguous...

[@dejabba9602]

hi, I am also thinking the same, the paragraph is not only about the stereotype and besides, they also mention a depiction of all Mexicans (bad one because of the war).

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Great question! I think the best way to deal with this one is to look for the more flawed answer (as opposed to the "perfect" answer). From that perspective, notice that (A) gets the scope wrong. The passage is specifically focused on the depiction of Californianas (Mexican women in the territory of California). To say that the passage is about the depiction of Mexican Americans in general is too broad. It's true that negative depictions of Mexican Americans are mentioned, but that serves mainly to contrast with the main point about Californianas. So long story short, the scope of (A) is much too broad. While (C) is not terribly specific, notice that we can't accuse it of being wrong. The passage is about a literary stereotype, and about its historical origins. The fact that (C) doesn't specify which literary stereotype isn't a problem. Taken on its own, (C) is a true statement about the primary purpose of the passage. By contrast, (A) is more specific in a way that introduces a flaw. For that reason, (C) is right and (A) is wrong. Thanks for the question and let me know if that helps!

[@kashishbhatter4211]

Hello GMAT Ninja Team, I am really facing difficulty with detail obsession. While looking the way you solve it: We should just focus on the function of each paragragh. How could I work on it?

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Obsessing over details in RC is a problem for many test-takers, so you're definitely not alone! But what can you do about it? As you suggest, focusing on the function or purpose of the paragraph can help people avoid obsessing over the details. After you read each paragraph, challenge yourself to summarize its main purpose in 10 words or less. You don't need (or even want) to sum up every last detail. Rather, you want to capture succinctly what the other is trying to accomplish. If you hold yourself to just ten words, you'll pretty much force yourself to think bigger picture, which is exactly what you want to do. For a more detailed description of this process, feel free to check out our Reading Comp Guide, which you can find at the following URL: www.gmatninja.com/gmat/articles/verbal/beginners-guide-to-gmat-reading-comprehension Thanks for the question, and let me know if that helps!

[@IshanLimaye]

Hello, In Passage 1 Q4, Will A be a more proper answer than C? While the historical influence is discussed to explain the stereotype, the stereotype comes in the second paragraph. In both paragraphs, Mexican Americans are depicted, firstly explaining the law which protected the 'Californianas', and secondly in their depiction of the stereotypical plot. In addition to this, the line about the Mexican-American war uses historical influence to highlight the unflattering view of Mexican-Americans. So while option C is valid for the second paragraph, the answer must be A. Of course, this is my thought process, and I would love to understand what you think!

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Great question! One way to approach this question is to take an "elimination" approach. Instead of trying to decide which answer is better, we'll look for a clear flaw in one of the answer choices. Let's start with (A): A. trace historical influences on the depiction of Mexican Americans in the nineteenth century The phrase "trace historical influences" seems fine. But what about the words "depictions of Mexican Americans?" That's overly broad. This answer choice seems to be saying that the passage's main purpose is to trace historical influences on the depictions of "Mexican Americans" in general. But in fact, the main purpose of the passage is to discuss "literary" portrayals of "Californianas" specifically, not Mexican Americans in general. It's true that the passage mentions unflattering depictions of Mexicans, but that doesn't really change things. First, because answer choice (A) refers to "Mexican Americans," not Mexicans. And second, because those "unflattering depictions" are mentioned to emphasize the "noteworthiness" of the favorable "literary stereotype." In other words, the author's main purpose isn't to discuss negative stereotypes of Mexicans; that idea is just there to emphasize the main point about favorable literary stereotypes. For all those reasons, (A) has clear flaws, so we can eliminate it. Let's now consider (C): C. describe the historical origins of a literary stereotype It's hard to find a problem with this one. "Describe historical origins" is pretty similar to "trace historical influences." And it's definitely discussing a literary stereotype -- no glaring problem with that statement. So even if (C) doesn't feel like the perfect answer, it doesn't have any clear flaws either. For that reason, it's correct. One other passing thought -- the author's primary purpose doesn't necessarily need to be discussed directly in every paragraph. In a way, you could think of the primary purpose as similar to the conclusion of an argument. The conclusion doesn't need to be mentioned in every line of the argument. But the passage as a whole is designed to deliver, explain, and support the conclusion. Put another way -- the primary purpose is the central the message the author is trying to communicate, whether it's mentioned throughout or only in one paragraph. As you point out, the literary stereotype isn't discussed at all in the first paragraph, but that isn't necessarily a problem. Looking at the passage as a whole, we can see that the first paragraph is providing background information to explain and support the second paragraph, which fully presents the author's primary purpose. Thanks for the question, and let me know if that helps!

[@IshanLimaye]

@@GMATNinjaTutoring Great explanation! Thanks!

[@Conk-bepis]

The way Alex makes summaries and other members of GMAT Ninja team make para summaries is a bit different and hence a bit hard to follow. But I guess everyone's summaries for a para may differ. Would this affect your accuracy to answer questions in any way ?

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

You can think of the paragraph summaries as more of an art than a formula, and two different readers will, of course, come up with somewhat different summaries. That part is fine. The important thing is for those summaries to be rooted 100% in the big picture of the passage -- they should be anchored in the author's purpose and the various points of view that might be presented in the passage. If those summaries turn into a blizzard of disconnected details -- or if they feature only a key phrase that doesn't actually encompass the main purpose of a paragraph, or if they include inaccurate statements -- that's a problem. Beyond that, it's not necessarily a bad thing to see some variation in the phrasing of the summaries. Alex and I might summarize things slightly differently, but you'll always see the author's purpose and point of view at the forefront of our analysis, no matter what. I hope that helps a bit!

[@atul_patel]

if you get 3/4 questions right, is that a good thing or bad? I mean does the scores get affected to much ?

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

That's a good question! Your score on the GMAT verbal section depends on the number of questions you miss, but also on their difficulty. For instance, missing an "easy" questions would hurt your score more than missing a really "hard" question -- so the impact of getting 3/4 correct would partly depend on the difficulty of the question you missed. For more on how the GMAT Focus is scored, feel free to check out our article at this URL: www.gmatninja.com/gmat/articles/basics/how-to-calculate-gmat-scores Thanks again for the question, and let me know if that helps!

[@atul_patel]

@@GMATNinjaTutoring Thanks for the explanation. I was specifically asking for the hard passages. The ones we did above. If you get 3/4 right on all the passages, does that keep you in the high RC score bandwidth? or takes you down to medium score range?

[@gauravbadve9692]

Passage 2 question 2 can you please explain where is it suggested that Cavendish challenges patriarchism? She infact takes inspiration from the concept of monarch in radicalism.

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Good question! To get started, let's ask ourselves -- what exactly is this patriarchalism that Cavendish was challenging? Going to the first paragraph, we see that patriarchalism “equates family and kingdom and asserts the divinely ordained absolute power of the king and, by analogy, of the male head of the household.” You’re correct that Cavendish does NOT challenge the idea of a monarch itself. Rather, she opposes the idea that the “male head of the household” is like a king. Instead, she insists that she is “self-sufficient,” not a “satellite orbiting a dominant male planet.” So while Cavendish doesn’t challenge the idea of a monarch, she does challenge the patriarchal idea that the male head of the household is like a king I hope that helps!

[@srilanka739]

In passage 1 the last question - is A wrong bcos it doesnt specify that depictions of mexican americans in literary settings? cause then it would be almost impossible to chose between the two

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Thanks for this question, Sri lanka! For the last question in passage 1, why is (A) wrong? Overall, I’d say (A) is simply too broad. Put another way, the passage is more narrowly focused than (A) indicates. How so? First, as you say, the passage is specifically about literary depictions, not depictions in general. Second, it’s not about depictions of Mexican Americans generally, but specifically about Mexican women living in territorial California (i.e. Californianas). And lastly, the passage is specifically interested in how a piece of history has influenced a specific, fictional plot about Californianas -- not on depictions of Mexican Americans generally. For those reasons, (A) is too broad to capture the primary purpose of the passage. But what about (C)? Notice that (C) is much more focused. The “literary stereotype” in (C) refers to the stereotypical plot discussed in paragraph 2. And the passage is indeed focused on describing the historical origins of this “literary stereotype.” Comparing these answer choices, we see that (A) is too broad. The passage is actually focused on a more narrow issue. Since (C) captures more accurately the narrow issue that the passage discusses, it's correct. I hope that helps!

[@SAUPAYANMAZUMDAR]

Passage 1: I am still confused about Q4. Why is it C (I picked A, just FYI). C mentions only the literary stereotype, which is probably 80% of the 2nd paragraph (i.e. < 40% of the entire passage) I will argue that option A captures the overall picture better, because the passage also talks about non-Californianas and why they were depicted in a poorer light (and the prevalent War conditions at that time which led to such potrayals and also contrasts the 2 potrayal styles). So, I think A captures much more of the "OVERALL PICTURE" than does C. What am I missing here? I will really appreciate it if anyone can help. Thanks in advance

[@GRENinjaTutoring]

Great question! As you suggest, (A) is a more general answer than (C). More specifically, (A) refers to the “depiction of Mexican Americans in the nineteenth century,” whereas (C) is specifically referring to the literary stereotype about Californianas. So does that make (A) better? Actually, (A) is wrong because it is TOO general. Keep in mind that the purpose of the first paragraph is to present Castaneda’s research (i.e. literary portrayals of Mexican Americans), while the purpose of the second paragraph is to present one of Castaneda’s findings (i.e. a certain law explains a literary stereotype). While the passage does discuss unflattering portrayals of Mexicans, this is only mentioned as a contrast to the main point about Californianas. In other words, unflattering portrayals of Mexicans are only mentioned to explain why the literary stereotype is “noteworthy.” Long story short, while the passage does mention unflattering portrayals of Mexicans, (A) is just too general. The focus of the passage is more specifically the literary stereotype which Castaneda explained through her historical research. So since it’s too general, (A) is incorrect. Another thought - notice that (A) talks about depictions of “Mexican Americans.” But paragraph two talks specifically about unflattering portrayals of “Mexicans,” which is not exactly the same. That provides another reason to get rid of (A). Thanks again for the question, and let me know if that helps at all!

[@SAUPAYANMAZUMDAR]

As usual, everything from the GMATNinja team is gold! I understand exactly what you mean here. If I were to take something away from this discuss and apply it more generically, are there any markers for me to tell when something is TOO general? In other words, I was under the impression that “primary purpose” questions are about summarizing the whole text as best as I can. It now seems like “primary purpose” is (and there’s going to be a lot of hand waving in the next line…) kinda what I would remember about this passage a month later if I were to recount it for my friend. Is that about right?

[@kallurivenkatesh5072]

In Passage 2 question 2 how can the answer be e when we are not sure what the opinions of the parlamentarian side is and how that will make the historians less puzzled

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

As you point out, the passage doesn't tell us much about the views of the Parliamentarian side. So why is E the correct answer? Let's start by figuring out why the historians are puzzled: According to the passage, historians are puzzled because the forerunners of modern feminism were associated with the Royalist side in their conflict with the Parliamentarians. Why is that surprising? Because the Royalists were associated with "radical patriarchalism" and the absolute power of the "male head of the household." The passage admits that the Royalists may not have been all that patriarchal. But in that case, historians would have expected "early feminists to be equally divided between the two sides." So what does that tell us? Basically, historians are puzzled that so many early feminists were associated with the Royalists (who were anti-feminist), as opposed to the Parliamentarians (who may or may not have been anti-feminist). Because even if the Parliamentarians were just as patriarchal, you'd expect half the early feminists to be associated with them. But the fact remains that most of the women were associated with the Royalist side, which is odd. However, if more of them were associated with the Parliamentarian, that would be less odd. For that reason, E is correct. Thanks for the question, and let me know if that helps at all!

[@sudhanshujha2394]

Greetings Gmatninja, Which magazine shall cater to social science and humanities passages as scientific American caters to science passages, have gone through publications of American Journal of Sociology but can u suggest sth crisp as scientific American... Thank you!!!

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Here is the url for our article on reading non-fiction to help improve reading comp performance: www.gmatninja.com/gmat/articles/verbal/reading-nonfiction-to-improve-rc If you scroll to the bottom of the article, some specific resources are mentioned. As a bonus, The New Yorker Magazine tends have densely written articles on a wide variety of topics, so you definitely can't go wrong there either. Thanks for checking out the video, and let us know if that helps at all!

[@Gauravmsr20]

I now understand that I need to work a lot on humanitarian topics

[@rheasoni8739]

Hi, thank you so much for these videos, incredibly helpful for test-takers like me! You guys are saints! :P Small question - Charles recommended that LSAT reading passages are a great way to reach a higher score in the Verbal section of GMAT, any idea where I could find online resources for the same? :)

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Thank you for the kind words, Rhea! I'm thrilled that we've been able to help a bit with the video series. If you're interested in learning more about why we're big fans of the LSAT, this article might help: www.gmatninja.com/gmat/articles/verbal/5-reasons-why-the-lsat-can-help-your-gmat-score. If you're just interested in getting your hands on some LSAT tests to help you practice RC and CR, any of the books of official LSAT tests will work. Here's one example: amzn.to/3Vhjjpw. There's also a free test on the LSAT website if you'd like to try that first. I hope that helps a bit, and have fun studying!

[@sunilmurty1992]

Hello Rhea, do you have Manhattan Gmat mock test series access?

[@sahithyadevaraj144]

I'm going to give gmat exam on october end , do i need to study Sentence correction.

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Yes, definitely. The new GMAT Focus isn't available until November 7, so you'll still be doing the old version of the GMAT in October. At the moment, we still don't know exactly when the "old" GMAT will be phased out, but it will be available until sometime in Q1 2024 -- so even if you decide to retake after October, Sentence Correction could still be useful if you decide to stick with the current GMAT. For more on the new GMAT Focus Edition, check out this article, which we'll update with the latest information as it becomes available: www.gmatninja.com/gmat/articles/basics/gmat-focus-edition-changes. I hope that helps a bit, and have fun studying!

[@sahithyadevaraj144]

@@GMATNinjaTutoring People who have taken the old version of GMAT have an advantage during the selection process over the GMAT than those who have taken the Focus version?

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

@@sahithyadevaraj144 No, that's definitely not a thing. Schools aren't going to give priority to one test over the other, so your job is just to take the test that makes the most sense for you, and don't worry about anything else.

[@sahithyadevaraj144]

@@GMATNinjaTutoring Thank you

[@varshaabraham6799]

Hello Alex, I don't think that it was obvious that Catherine was a woman from the seventeenth century. Any challenging that happened, was it at the seventeenth century or later? I think it is a very misleading assumption to make. Do let me know if I have misunderstood the concept. I don't know if that makes it the more likelier answer but it didn't make sense. Thank you for your time

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Thank you for this question, Varsha! You raise a good point - the passage never tells us the time period that Catherine Gallagher is from. We know that she has opinions about 17th Century women, but we don’t when Catherine Gallagher herself lived, so we definitely don’t want to assume that she lived in the 17th Century. We do know, on the other hand, that Margaret Cavendish, the “notoriously eccentric author,” lived in the 17th Century (i.e. from “1626-1673”). Hopefully that addressed your concern, but I apologize if I missed your point! Please feel free to share any additional questions you have, and I’d be more than happy to clarify if I can. Thanks again for the question!

[@gyansagar1389]

In P2 Q4 Did one scholar really explained the puzzling historical phenomenon.

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

As a primary purpose, answer choice (B) is admittedly pretty vague -- "present one scholar's explanation for a puzzling historical phenomenon." But that doesn't mean it's wrong. To analyze an answer choice like this, it's important to interpret what each piece might mean. First, who is this "scholar?" That must be Catherine Gallagher, who argues that "Royalism engendered feminism because the ideology of absolute monarchy provided a transition to an ideology of the absolute self." Second, what is the "puzzling historical phenomenon?" That must be the "odd" fact that the forerunners of feminism "are almost all identified with the Royalist side," which was associated with patriarchalism. Third, is it fair to say that Gallagher provides an explanation for this puzzle? Well, she discusses the example of Margaret Cavendish to explain why a Royalist woman might be a forerunner of feminism -- i.e. she focuses on the figure of the monarch as a metaphor for the autonomous self, which later feminists retained to describe a women's autonomy. So (B) checks out -- all the components of the answer choice map nicely onto the passage. BUT, is it the primary purpose? Well, the author starts by describing a puzzling historical phenomenon. Then, they provide a scholar's explanation for this phenomenon. So overall, (B) seems like a decent description of the main purpose. For that reason, it's correct. Thanks for the question, and let us know if that helps at all!

[@gyansagar1389]

@@GMATNinjaTutoring thankyou coach!

[@andrewjohn8213]

I am poor in Verbal section, I need assistance

[@ambarshukla4389]

I feel like answer should be E in question 4 of passage 1. The primary purpose was not to talk about stereotype but to examine the literary portrayal of Mexican American women in 19th century . Stereotype came in the picture because it influenced the depiction of Mexican American.

[@mohammadmuzammil2957]

I feel exactly the same. Talking about the stereotypical plot was one idea in the passage which overall talked about the literary portrayal of Mexican women. Option 1 should be right.

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Thank you for this question, Ambar! To analyze question 4 of passage 1, let's start by considering the general purpose of each paragraph. Purpose of Paragraph 1: To present a scholar (Castaneda) who uses women's studies and Mexican American history to examine literary portrayals of Mexican women. Purpose of Paragraph 2: To show how, according to Castaneda, a piece of Mexican American history can explain a stereotypical literary plot about Mexican women. The piece of Mexican American history referred to in paragraph 2 is the law mentioned in paragraph one, which protected the economic position of Californianas. According to Castaneda, this law explains the stereotypical literary plot of an ambitious trader wanting to marry an elite Californiana. In other words, the law protected the inheritance rights of Californianas, ensuring their right to inherit property. And if they inherited property, that could make them attractive to ambitious traders looking for a spouse. All of that would explain the stereotypical literary plot of "an ambitious non-hispanic merchant or trader desirous of marrying an elite Californiana." Let's now consider question 4, answer choice (E): 4. The primary purpose of the passage is to E. evaluate both sides in a scholarly debate about a prominent literary stereotype So what's wrong with (E)? Well, the passage does talk about a literary stereotype. But it does not talk about a scholarly debate on this stereotype. In other words, we don't get two different points of view on this literary stereotype. Rather, we just get one point of view (Castaneda's point of view). Since there is no scholarly debate that the author evaluates, (E) must be wrong. Let's now consider (C): C. describe the historical origins of a literary stereotype As you say, the passage examines the literary portrayal of Mexican women. In doing so, it discusses a "stereotypical literary plot." In other words, it discusses a "literary stereotype," as (C) says. But does it discuss the historical origins of this literary stereotype? Absolutely. It talks about the piece of Mexican American history (the law mentioned in paragraph one), which Castaneda believes holds the explanation for the "stereotypical literary plot" (i.e. a "literary stereotype"). For that reason, (C) is correct. One other thought on this question - as you say, the passage is exploring the literary portrayal of Mexican women. And yet, answer choice (C) talks about a “literary stereotype.” Does that make (C) wrong? To answer that, let’s consider exactly what “literary stereotype” the question is referring to. Based on the passage, the phrase “literary stereotype” must be referring to the “stereotypical plot” mentioned in paragraph 2. In other words, the “literary stereotype” is in fact a literary portrayal of Mexican women. So even though (C) doesn’t explicitly say “portrayal of Mexican women,” that’s exactly what the phrase “literary stereotype” is referring to, which confirms that (C) is correct. Thanks again for your question , and let me know if that helps at all!

[@hninazali9859]

@@GMATNinjaTutoring Is option C better than option A just because of its mention of "literary"? The passage also mentions historical influences of why Mexican Americans are depicted unfavourably (to gain support for Mexican American war), which is outside of the scope suggested by the "literary stereotype" in Option C. I feel that Option C captures only the part of the passage about the stereotype while Option A captures other historical influences mentioned in the passage too.

[@Harshit-Sharma08]

Thank you for the videos! They are very helpful; really appreciate the efforts. Quick tip, would like for Alex to turn up his mic a bit, the volume is very low unlike others from GMAT Ninja.

[@Ph3linX]

I'm not sure about the answer in P2 Q2. If the historians are puzzled about feminists being associated with the Royalist side, how can we get the idea that if more of them identify with Parlia. side, they would be less puzzled? Since we don't know anything about the Parl. side and its ideas, how can we derive the conclusion that they would be less puzzled? For start, we dont even know that if Parl. side is more logically close to a feminist perspective, which is less patriarchal. Maybe its way outside it, or it's something else entirely. It's very hard to know if they would be less puzzled. I don't really understand how can you easily assume this without question. Secondly, someone else also mentioned it in below the comment, Cavendish doesn't challange patriarchism, she takes inspiration from it. I think (B) is a better answer for Q2 because we can clearly see that these feminists, even though they were aware of the patriarchal side of the Royalists, they didn't challenge them and the idea openly.

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

All good questions! Let's start with the question of why historians would be less puzzled if more feminists were associated with the Parliamentarian side. As you say, the passage doesn't tell us much about the Parliamentarian side. Were they closer to the feminist perspective? Were just as bad as the Royalists? Notice the author addresses this exact question in paragraph 1: "...there may have been no consistent differences between Royalists and Parliamentarians on issues of family organization and women’s political rights, but in that case one would expect early feminists to be equally divided between the two sides." So author acknowledges that the Parliamentarian and Royalist sides might not have been different in their ideas about women. But if that were the case, you'd expect the feminists to be equally divided between the Parliamentarian and Royalists sides. In other words, if both sides were equally against women's rights, feminists shouldn't be drawn to one side more than the other. But if they absolutely had to pick a side, you'd expect them to be evenly split between both. But...that isn't the case. The puzzling fact remains that more feminists were associated with the Royalist side. However, for the reasons outlined above, if more of them were associated with the Parliamentarian side, that would be less puzzling. Because even if both sides were equally bad on women's rights, why would more feminists side with the Royalists? Let's move on to the question about Cavendish and patriarchalism. For starters - what exactly is this patriarchalism that Cavendish was supposedly challenging? Going to the first paragraph, we see that patriarchalism “equates family and kingdom and asserts the divinely ordained absolute power of the king and, by analogy, of the male head of the household.” You’re correct that Cavendish doesn’t challenge the idea of a monarch itself. Rather, she opposes the idea that the “male head of the household” is like a king. Instead, she insists that she is “self-sufficient,” not a “satellite orbiting a dominant male planet.” So while Cavendish doesn’t challenge the idea of a monarch, she does challenge the patriarchal idea that the male head of the household is like a king. For that reason, we can eliminate (B). I hope that helps!

[@rahulbanerjee8867]

Hi! You guys HAVE NO IDEA how helpful these videos are! Thank you for doing incredible work. Indebted, for sure. I've a doubt - for Q3 in P2, why is A) not the right answer? My logic was this - Royalist women were better educated, hence that explained them being Royalists YET feminists, since education could have helped them become feminists in the first place.

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

Thanks for this question Rahul! As you suggest, if answer choice (A) provided an alternative explanation for why Royalist women became feminists, that would make it a compelling answer. Gallagher thinks that Royalist women became feminists because their "ideology of absolute monarchy" led them to the idea of a "woman's sovereign self," which in turn led them to feminism. But as you point out, if we had an alternative explanation, that would undermine Gallagher's explanation. The problem is, (A) doesn't provide a very convincing alternative explanation. Would better education in 17th-century England lead someone to become a feminist? We really don't know. It's not impossible, but neither answer choice (A) nor anything in the passage give us any reason to think "better education" would cause feminist thinking. What exactly would better education in 17th-century England entail? If it included patriarchal ideas (like those of Robert Filmer), it could actually be anti-feminist. Or maybe it wouldn't address the issue of feminism at all? Basically, since we don't know what the education mentioned in answer choice (A) entails, the above possibilities would all be equally likely. So we can't conclude from answer choice (A) that more education would make Royalist women more feminist. And for that reason, we can eliminate (A). Thanks again for the question, and let me know if that helps clarify things!

[@sachinarora1156]

these kind of passages are so much difficult for non americans

[@basharabuein409]

In passage 1, you mention that the contradiction was between the portrayal of Mexicans in general and of Californianas. I would say that the contradiction is between what Mexican historians were claiming to be true (that there was an unfavorable view of Mexicans), vs what actually is true (Mexicans were favored). So the contradiction's aim is possibly to doubt the legitimacy of these historians? You also say that there was an unflattering depiction of Mexicans in literature because of the war, but isn't it the other way around? as historians concluded that these depictions helped rally up people to support the war. So, depictions -> rally up support -> war.

[@YashVashisht07]

It’s a amazing experience reading directly from Mexican gangsters 😂❤

[@smkj9405]

Thanks alot

[@mayurgmat]

Passage-1 question 3. choice B. -> Very few marraiages b/w hispanic women and non-H men were documented..(shouldn't this mean that ACTUALLT THERE WERE A LOT OF MARRIAGES IN REAL AND thus support the plot???)

[@GMATNinjaTutoring]

You raise an interesting question -- if "very few marriages between Hispanic women and non-Hispanic men in nineteenth-century territorial California have actually been documented," what does that tell us? Well, it's hard to draw any solid conclusions from this. Does it mean that very few of these marriages ACTUALLY took place? Not necessarily. Maybe they did take place and they just weren't documented. From another angle -- if few of the marriages were actually documented, does that mean a lot of them actually DID take place? That would also be a leap. We wouldn't want to conclude that because few were documented, a lot of undocumented ones occurred. Maybe few were documented simply because few actually occurred? One more perspective, in case it helps -- notice that (B) is not saying that "few OF the marriages" were documented, which might imply that more were undocumented than documented. Rather, it simply tells us that few such marriages were documented period, without any information about how many were undocumented. Bottom line, we can conclude that answer choice (B) fails to provide any evidence to support the idea that marriages between Hispanic women and non-Hispanic men occurred with much frequency. For that reason, it fails to provide support for Castaneda's explanation of the stereotypical plot, and we can eliminate it. I hope that helps!