In a new book about the antiparty feeling of the early political leaders of the United States, Ralph Ketcham argues...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
In a new book about the antiparty feeling of the early political leaders of the United States, Ralph Ketcham argues that the first six Presidents differed decisively from later Presidents because the first six held values inherited from the classical humanist tradition of eighteenth-century England. In this view, government was designed not to satisfy the private desires of the people but to make them better citizens; this tradition stressed the disinterested devotion of political leaders to the public good. Justice, wisdom, and courage were more important qualities in a leader than the ability to organize voters and win elections. Indeed, leaders were supposed to be called to office rather than to run for office. And if they took up the burdens of public office with a sense of duty, leaders also believed that such offices were naturally their due because of their social preeminence or their contributions to the country. Given this classical conception of leadership, it is not surprising that the first six Presidents condemned political parties. Parties were partial by definition, self-interested, and therefore serving something other than the transcendent public good.
Even during the first presidency (Washington's), however, the classical conception of virtuous leadership was being undermined by commercial forces that had been gathering since at least the beginning of the eighteenth century. Commerce—its profit-making, its self-interestedness, its individualism—became the enemy of these classical ideals. Although Ketcham does not picture the struggle in quite this way, he does rightly see Jackson's tenure (the seventh presidency) as the culmination of the acceptance of party, commerce, and individualism. For the Jacksonians, nonpartisanship lost its relevance, and under the direction of Van Buren, party gained a new legitimacy. The classical ideals of the first six Presidents became identified with a privileged aristocracy, an aristocracy that had to be overcome in order to allow competition between opposing political interests. Ketcham is so strongly committed to justifying the classical ideals, however, that he underestimates the advantages of their decline. For example, the classical conception of leadership was incompatible with our modern notion of the freedoms of speech and press, freedoms intimately associated with the legitimacy of opposing political parties.
The passage is primarily concerned with
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| In a new book about the antiparty feeling of the early political leaders of the United States, Ralph Ketcham argues that the first six Presidents differed decisively from later Presidents because the first six held values inherited from the classical humanist tradition of eighteenth-century England. | What it says: A researcher named Ketcham wrote a book claiming the first 6 US Presidents were different from later ones because they followed old English ideas about leadership. What it does: Introduces the main argument and sets up a comparison between early vs. later Presidents Source/Type: Researcher's claim (Ketcham's argument) Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous information to connect to Visualization: Timeline: Presidents 1-6 (Washington through John Quincy Adams) vs. Presidents 7+ (Jackson onward) Reading Strategy Insight: Notice this sets up a clear comparison structure. Look for details about what made the first 6 different. What We Know So Far: First 6 Presidents were different because of classical English values What We Don't Know Yet: What these classical values were, how they were different |
| In this view, government was designed not to satisfy the private desires of the people but to make them better citizens; this tradition stressed the disinterested devotion of political leaders to the public good. | What it says: According to these old English ideas, government should improve people as citizens, not give them what they want. Leaders should care about the public good, not personal gain. What it does: Explains what the "classical humanist tradition" actually meant Source/Type: Elaboration of Ketcham's argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on Sentence 1 by defining what "classical humanist tradition" means. This is clarification, not new complexity! Visualization: Classical View: Government = Tool to improve citizens vs. Modern View: Government = Tool to satisfy citizen desires Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - the author is explaining the complex term from Sentence 1 |
| Justice, wisdom, and courage were more important qualities in a leader than the ability to organize voters and win elections. | What it says: Classical leaders valued character traits (justice, wisdom, courage) over political skills (organizing voters, winning elections). What it does: Provides specific examples of classical vs. modern leadership qualities Source/Type: Continued elaboration of Ketcham's argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on Sentence 2 by giving concrete examples of what "disinterested devotion" looks like in practice. Visualization: Classical Leader Qualities: Justice, Wisdom, Courage vs. Modern Leader Qualities: Vote organizing, Election winning Reading Strategy Insight: Another helpful clarification - abstract ideas becoming concrete |
| Indeed, leaders were supposed to be called to office rather than to run for office. | What it says: Classical leaders should be chosen by others, not campaign for themselves. What it does: Reinforces the previous point with another specific example Source/Type: Additional example supporting Ketcham's argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This restates Sentence 3 in different words - "called to office" = having good character vs. "run for office" = political organizing skills Visualization: Classical: Citizens choose leader → Leader accepts vs. Modern: Leader campaigns → Citizens vote Reading Strategy Insight: This reinforces rather than complicates - same concept, new angle |
| And if they took up the burdens of public office with a sense of duty, leaders also believed that such offices were naturally their due because of their social preeminence or their contributions to the country. | What it says: Classical leaders felt both dutiful about serving AND entitled to lead because of their high social status or past contributions. What it does: Adds nuance by showing classical leaders had both humble and privileged attitudes Source/Type: Additional detail about classical leadership mindset Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on Sentence 4 ("called to office") by explaining WHY they felt called - both duty AND entitlement Visualization: Classical Leader Mindset: 50% Duty ("burden") + 50% Entitlement ("naturally their due") Reading Strategy Insight: This adds complexity but doesn't change the main pattern - still describing classical leadership values |
| Given this classical conception of leadership, it is not surprising that the first six Presidents condemned political parties. | What it says: Because the first 6 Presidents believed in classical leadership, they naturally disliked political parties. What it does: Connects classical values to antiparty feelings - the main point of the passage! Source/Type: Author's logical conclusion from Ketcham's argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This ties everything together! Sentences 2-5 explained classical values, now we see why that led to antiparty feelings Visualization: Classical Values (justice, wisdom, called to office) → Logic dictates → Anti-party stance Reading Strategy Insight: This is a "payoff" sentence - it shows why we learned about classical values. Feel confident here! What We Know So Far: Classical values → antiparty feelings (main argument established) |
| Parties were partial by definition, self-interested, and therefore serving something other than the transcendent public good. | What it says: From the classical perspective, political parties are biased, selfish, and don't serve the greater good. What it does: Explains WHY classical leaders disliked parties Source/Type: Explanation of classical leaders' reasoning Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on Sentence 6 by explaining the logic. Parties = partial/self-interested vs. Classical ideal = public good Visualization: Classical View: Parties (partial, self-interested) ≠ Public Good (transcendent, universal) Reading Strategy Insight: Another helpful explanation - we're getting the reasoning behind the conclusion |
| Even during the first presidency (Washington's), however, the classical conception of virtuous leadership was being undermined by commercial forces that had been gathering since at least the beginning of the eighteenth century. | What it says: Even during Washington's time, business/commercial forces were already weakening these classical leadership ideals. What it does: Introduces the opposing force (commerce) that challenged classical values Source/Type: Historical observation (possibly from Ketcham's book) Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts with Sentences 1-7 by showing classical values were under attack even early on. The "however" signals this shift. Visualization: Timeline: 1789 (Washington) - Classical values already being challenged by 100+ years of growing commercial forces Reading Strategy Insight: New direction but builds on established concepts - we know what classical values are, now we see what opposed them |
| Commerce—its profit-making, its self-interestedness, its individualism—became the enemy of these classical ideals. | What it says: Business values (making profit, self-interest, individualism) directly opposed classical values. What it does: Defines what commercial forces meant and explicitly states the conflict Source/Type: Analysis of the value conflict Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on Sentence 8 by specifying what "commercial forces" were. Commerce (self-interest) vs. Classical ideals (public good) Visualization: Classical Values (public good, duty, wisdom) vs. Commercial Values (profit, self-interest, individualism) Reading Strategy Insight: Clear conflict established - same pattern as parties vs. classical values |
| Although Ketcham does not picture the struggle in quite this way, he does rightly see Jackson's tenure (the seventh presidency) as the culmination of the acceptance of party, commerce, and individualism. | What it says: The passage author agrees with Ketcham that Jackson's presidency marked when party politics, business values, and individualism fully won out. What it does: Shows when the classical to modern transition was complete Source/Type: Author's analysis agreeing with part of Ketcham's argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on the timeline from Sentence 1 (first 6 vs. later) and Sentences 8-9 (commercial opposition) by pinpointing President #7 as the turning point. Visualization: Presidents 1-6: Classical values dominant → President 7 (Jackson): Commercial/party values triumph Reading Strategy Insight: This completes the historical narrative - we see the full transition |
| For the Jacksonians, nonpartisanship lost its relevance, and under the direction of Van Buren, party gained a new legitimacy. | What it says: Jackson's supporters no longer cared about staying above party politics, and Van Buren made party politics respectable. What it does: Provides specific evidence of how the classical ideal died Source/Type: Historical evidence supporting the transition claim Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on Sentence 10 by giving concrete examples of how "acceptance of party" happened. Nonpartisanship (classical) lost vs. Party legitimacy gained Visualization: Classical Era: Nonpartisanship = good → Jacksonian Era: Party politics = legitimate Reading Strategy Insight: Concrete evidence for abstract claim - helps confirm the transition |
| The classical ideals of the first six Presidents became identified with a privileged aristocracy, an aristocracy that had to be overcome in order to allow competition between opposing political interests. | What it says: Classical leadership values got seen as elitist aristocratic ideas that needed to be defeated to allow democratic party competition. What it does: Explains HOW the classical values were defeated - by being labeled as elitist Source/Type: Analysis of how the political transformation occurred Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on Sentence 11 by explaining WHY party gained legitimacy - it was seen as more democratic than classical leadership. Connects back to Sentence 5 (social preeminence) which now seems "aristocratic" Visualization: Public Perception: Classical values = aristocratic privilege vs. Party competition = democratic fairness Reading Strategy Insight: This shows the political logic behind the historical change - not just what happened, but why it was accepted |
| Ketcham is so strongly committed to justifying the classical ideals, however, that he underestimates the advantages of their decline. | What it says: The passage author criticizes Ketcham for being too favorable toward classical values and not seeing the benefits of their decline. What it does: Introduces the passage author's main criticism of Ketcham's book Source/Type: Author's critical evaluation of Ketcham's argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This shifts from describing Ketcham's argument to critiquing it. The "however" signals this turn. Visualization: Ketcham's view: Classical decline = bad vs. Author's view: Classical decline had advantages Reading Strategy Insight: New phase - now we get the passage author's independent perspective |
| For example, the classical conception of leadership was incompatible with our modern notion of the freedoms of speech and press, freedoms intimately associated with the legitimacy of opposing political parties. | What it says: Classical leadership values conflicted with free speech and press freedom, which are essential for legitimate opposition parties. What it does: Provides specific evidence for why classical decline had advantages Source/Type: Author's supporting example for the criticism Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on Sentence 13 by giving the concrete example promised by "For example." Shows classical values (Sentences 2-7) were incompatible with democratic freedoms. Visualization: Classical leadership (public good, no parties) vs. Modern democracy (free speech, press freedom, legitimate opposition) Reading Strategy Insight: Final piece of the argument - shows why the transition was actually beneficial What We Know So Far: Complete argument established - classical values → antiparty feeling → decline due to commerce → benefits of that decline |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To evaluate Ralph Ketcham's book about early American political leadership by explaining his argument about classical values and then critiquing his one-sided perspective on their decline.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by first presenting Ketcham's theory, then showing how history unfolded, and finally offering their own critique:
- First, the author presents Ketcham's main argument that the first six Presidents were different because they followed classical English ideas about leadership that valued public service over personal gain and opposed political parties.
- Next, the author explains how these classical values were gradually undermined by commercial forces that promoted self-interest and individualism, leading to their complete defeat during Jackson's presidency when party politics became acceptable.
- Then, the author describes how classical ideals came to be seen as elitist and aristocratic, making way for democratic party competition.
- Finally, the author criticizes Ketcham for being too nostalgic about classical values and failing to recognize that their decline actually brought important benefits like free speech and press freedom.
Main Point:
While Ketcham correctly explains why early Presidents opposed political parties, he is too biased in favor of classical values and misses the fact that their decline was actually beneficial for American democracy because it enabled essential freedoms like free speech and legitimate political opposition.
Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify the primary purpose or main focus of the entire passage. We need to determine what the author is fundamentally trying to accomplish across all paragraphs.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our analysis, we can see the passage has a clear three-part structure:
1. First, the author presents Ketcham's argument about classical values and antiparty feelings (sentences 1-7)
2. Next, the author describes the historical transition from classical to commercial values (sentences 8-12)
3. Finally, the author offers their own critique of Ketcham's perspective (sentences 13-14)
The passage analysis shows that while the author explains Ketcham's theory thoroughly, the ultimate goal is to evaluate it critically. The author agrees with parts of Ketcham's argument but criticizes him for being "so strongly committed to justifying the classical ideals" that he misses their disadvantages.
Prethinking:
The passage is primarily concerned with analyzing and critiquing Ketcham's argument about early American political leadership. The author doesn't just describe the theory - they evaluate it, show how history unfolded, and then offer a balanced perspective that Ketcham lacks. This suggests the answer should focus on analyzing or evaluating an argument rather than simply describing, comparing, or refuting it.
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage focuses on one main theory (Ketcham's argument about classical values), not two competing theories
- While the passage mentions classical vs. commercial values, these aren't presented as two equal theories but as historical forces in conflict
- The comparison element is secondary to the main purpose of evaluating Ketcham's argument
Why It's Wrong:
- This captures the structure but misses a crucial element - the passage doesn't just describe and analyze, it also critiques
- The author takes a clear evaluative stance, arguing that Ketcham \"underestimates the advantages\" of classical decline
- A pure description and analysis wouldn't include the author's disagreement with Ketcham's perspective
Why It's Right:
- The passage presents Ketcham's theory about classical values and antiparty feelings as the foundation
- Then provides additional historical context and perspective that adds nuance to that theory
- The information about commercial forces and the benefits of classical decline \"qualifies\" (modifies/adds conditions to) rather than refutes Ketcham's basic argument
- The author agrees with Ketcham's core point but argues his perspective is incomplete
Why It's Wrong:
- The author doesn't reject or disprove Ketcham's theory - they actually agree with much of it
- The passage confirms that classical values did lead to antiparty feelings, supporting rather than refuting Ketcham's main point
- The criticism is about Ketcham's one-sided perspective, not about his theory being wrong
Why It's Wrong:
- There's no ambiguity in Ketcham's argument that needs resolving - his position is clearly stated
- The passage doesn't clarify confusion but rather adds a missing perspective
- The author's contribution is evaluative critique, not clarification of unclear points