In colonial Connecticut between 1670 and 1719, women participated in one of every six civil cases, the vast majority of...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Official Guide
...
...
Post a Query
In colonial Connecticut between 1670 and 1719, women participated in one of every six civil cases, the vast majority of which were debt related. Women's participation dropped to one in ten cases after 1719, and to one in twenty by the 1770's. However, as Cornelia Hughes Dayton notes in Women Before the Bar: Gender, Law, and Society in Connecticut, 1639-1789, these statistics are somewhat deceptive: in fact, both the absolute numbers and the percentage of adult women participating in civil cases grew steadily throughout the eighteenth century, but the legal activity of men also increased dramatically, and at a much faster rate. Single, married, and widowed women continued to pursue their own and their husbands' debtors through legal action much as they had done in the previous century, but despite this continuity, their place in the legal system shifted dramatically. Men's commercial interests and credit networks became increasingly far-flung, owing in part to the ability of creditors to buy and sell promissory notes (legal promises to pay debts). At the same time, women's networks of credit and debt remained primarily local and personal. Dayton contends that, although still performing crucial economic services in their communities—services that contributed to the commercialization of the colonial economy—women remained for the most part outside the new economic and legal culture of the eighteenth century.
Ques. 1/3
The passage is primarily concerned with
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| In colonial Connecticut between 1670 and 1719, women participated in one of every six civil cases, the vast majority of which were debt related. | What it says: In early colonial Connecticut (1670-1719), women were involved in about 17% of court cases, mostly about money owed. What it does: Introduces the topic and provides baseline data Source/Type: Historical fact/statistic Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous information to connect to Visualization: Colonial Connecticut Court Cases (1670-1719): • Total cases: 600 • Cases with women: 100 (1 in 6) • Of those 100: about 85 were debt-related Reading Strategy Insight: This establishes our baseline - women had significant court participation in early period What We Know So Far: Women participated actively in colonial courts, mainly for debt issues What We Don't Know Yet: What happened after 1719, why this matters, what changed |
| Women's participation dropped to one in ten cases after 1719, and to one in twenty by the 1770's. | What it says: Women's court participation declined significantly - from 17% to 10% after 1719, then down to 5% by the 1770s. What it does: Shows a dramatic decline over time Source/Type: Historical fact/statistic Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 1 told us: Women participated in 1 in 6 cases (1670-1719) • NOW Sentence 2: Shows participation dropping to 1 in 10, then 1 in 20 • This builds directly on the baseline by showing what happened next Visualization: Women's Court Participation Over Time: • 1670-1719: 1 in 6 cases (17%) • After 1719: 1 in 10 cases (10%) • 1770s: 1 in 20 cases (5%) Reading Strategy Insight: Clear chronological progression - the story is unfolding logically in time order What We Know So Far: Women's court participation declined dramatically from early to late colonial period What We Don't Know Yet: Why this happened, whether this tells the whole story |
| However, as Cornelia Hughes Dayton notes in Women Before the Bar: Gender, Law, and Society in Connecticut, 1639-1789, these statistics are somewhat deceptive: | What it says: A researcher named Dayton warns us that the declining percentages don't tell the true story. What it does: Introduces an expert source and signals that our initial understanding needs revision Source/Type: Researcher's scholarly opinion Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentences 1-2 showed us: Women's participation percentages declined dramatically • NOW Sentence 3: An expert says "Wait - those numbers are misleading" • This doesn't contradict the facts, but suggests we need deeper analysis Visualization: What we thought we understood: Simple decline: 17% → 10% → 5% What Dayton suggests: The percentages don't show the full picture Reading Strategy Insight: "However" signals contrast, but note: this isn't making things more complex - it's preparing to clarify What We Know So Far: Raw percentages show decline, but expert says this is misleading What We Don't Know Yet: How exactly the statistics are deceptive, what the real story is |
| in fact, both the absolute numbers and the percentage of adult women participating in civil cases grew steadily throughout the eighteenth century, but the legal activity of men also increased dramatically, and at a much faster rate. | What it says: Here's the clarification: More women actually participated in court over time (both total numbers AND percentages), but men's participation exploded even faster. What it does: Resolves the "deceptive statistics" puzzle with a clear explanation Source/Type: Researcher's analysis/clarification Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 2 showed: Women's share dropped from 1 in 6 to 1 in 20 • Sentence 3 warned: Those stats are misleading • NOW Sentence 4: Explains exactly why - it's about relative growth rates, not absolute decline Visualization: What Really Happened (hypothetical numbers): 1670s: 100 women, 500 men = 1 in 6 1770s: 200 women, 3800 men = 1 in 20 Women doubled, but men increased 7-8 times! Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is clarification, not new complexity! The "puzzle" from sentence 3 gets a simple solution. What We Know So Far: Women's court participation actually increased, but was dwarfed by massive increase in male participation What We Don't Know Yet: Why men's participation exploded, what women were still doing |
| Single, married, and widowed women continued to pursue their own and their husbands' debtors through legal action much as they had done in the previous century, but despite this continuity, their place in the legal system shifted dramatically. | What it says: Women of all types kept using courts for debt collection just like before, but their relative position in the legal world changed significantly. What it does: Shows continuity in women's behavior while reinforcing that something fundamental shifted Source/Type: Researcher's analysis Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 4 explained: Women's participation actually increased but men's increased much more • NOW Sentence 5: Restates this same idea - women kept doing what they always did, but the system around them changed • This is NOT new information - it's reinforcing the key insight with concrete detail Visualization: Women's Activities Over Time: • What stayed the same: Pursuing debtors in court • Who did this: Single, married, widowed women • What changed: Their relative importance in the expanding legal system Reading Strategy Insight: This sentence restates the main point with helpful details - women's behavior was consistent, but context changed What We Know So Far: Women maintained consistent legal activity for debt collection, but became smaller players in rapidly expanding system What We Don't Know Yet: What drove the massive expansion in male legal activity |
| Men's commercial interests and credit networks became increasingly far-flung, owing in part to the ability of creditors to buy and sell promissory notes (legal promises to pay debts). | What it says: Men's business dealings became much more widespread and complex, partly because debt obligations could now be traded like commodities. What it does: Explains the mechanism behind men's increased legal activity Source/Type: Historical analysis of economic change Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 4 told us: Men's legal activity "increased dramatically" • Sentence 5 told us: Women continued local debt collection while their "place shifted dramatically" • NOW Sentence 6: Finally explains WHY men's activity exploded - new financial instruments enabled complex, long-distance commerce Visualization: Evolution of Male Commerce: • Old system: Local trade, direct relationships • New system: Far-flung networks, tradeable debt instruments • Result: Much more legal activity as networks expanded Promissory notes: John owes $100 to Mary → Mary sells this debt to Peter for $90 → Peter pursues John for $100 Reading Strategy Insight: This answers the "why" question we've been building toward - the explosion in male legal activity had a specific economic cause What We Know So Far: Men's legal activity increased due to new financial instruments enabling complex commercial networks What We Don't Know Yet: How this contrasts with women's continued approach |
| At the same time, women's networks of credit and debt remained primarily local and personal. | What it says: While men's business became far-reaching and impersonal, women's financial dealings stayed neighborhood-based and relationship-focused. What it does: Creates explicit contrast between male and female economic spheres Source/Type: Historical analysis Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentence 6 described: Men's "far-flung" commercial networks • NOW Sentence 7: Direct contrast - women's networks remained "local and personal" • This reinforces why women's relative legal position declined - they stayed in old system while men moved to new one Visualization: Two Different Economic Worlds: Men's Networks: Connecticut ↔ Boston ↔ New York ↔ Philadelphia (Tradeable debts, complex instruments) Women's Networks: Neighbor to neighbor in same town (Personal relationships, direct dealings) Reading Strategy Insight: This is a simple, clear contrast that explains everything we've learned so far What We Know So Far: Men and women operated in increasingly different economic spheres - men in expanding commercial networks, women in local personal relationships What We Don't Know Yet: The overall significance of this pattern |
| Dayton contends that, although still performing crucial economic services in their communities—services that contributed to the commercialization of the colonial economy—women remained for the most part outside the new economic and legal culture of the eighteenth century. | What it says: Dayton's main conclusion: Women still did important economic work that helped build the commercial economy, but they weren't part of the new business and legal systems. What it does: Provides the researcher's overall interpretation and ties together all the evidence Source/Type: Researcher's conclusion/argument Connection to Previous Sentences: • Sentences 1-2: Showed declining percentages • Sentences 3-4: Explained this was misleading - women's activity increased but men's increased more • Sentences 5-7: Showed women maintained local/personal approach while men moved to far-flung networks • NOW Sentence 8: Dayton's big-picture interpretation that explains the entire pattern Visualization: Dayton's Argument: ✓ Women performed crucial economic services ✓ These services helped commercialize the economy ✗ BUT women remained outside the new legal/economic culture Paradox: Women helped build what they weren't fully part of Reading Strategy Insight: This is the "so what?" moment - everything we've learned builds to this central insight about women's paradoxical position What We Know So Far: Complete picture - women contributed to economic transformation while remaining marginal to new systems |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain how women's role in the colonial Connecticut legal system changed over time by showing that simple statistics can be misleading and require deeper analysis to understand what really happened.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their explanation by first presenting what seems like a simple story, then showing why that story is incomplete:
- First, the author presents statistics showing that women's participation in court cases dropped dramatically from the late 1600s to the 1770s.
- Next, the author introduces a researcher who warns that these declining percentages don't tell the whole truth.
- Then, the author explains what really happened - women's court activity actually increased, but men's activity exploded even faster, making women seem less important by comparison.
- Finally, the author shows why men's legal activity grew so much (new business practices and financial tools) while women stuck to local, personal financial relationships, leading to the researcher's conclusion about women's changing position.
Main Point:
Women in colonial Connecticut continued to play important economic roles in their communities and helped build the new commercial economy, but they remained outside the new business and legal systems that men increasingly dominated during the 18th century.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify the primary concern or main purpose of the passage. We need to determine what the author is fundamentally trying to accomplish throughout the entire passage.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our progressive analysis, we can see the passage follows a clear pattern:
- The author presents initial statistical data about women's declining court participation (sentences 1-2)
- The author introduces researcher Cornelia Hughes Dayton and her perspective that these statistics are \"deceptive\" (sentence 3)
- The author explains Dayton's clarification of what really happened (sentence 4)
- The author continues reporting Dayton's analysis about women's continued activities and changing position (sentences 5-7)
- The author concludes by presenting Dayton's overall interpretation and conclusion (sentence 8)
The passage structure shows the author is primarily serving as a reporter or presenter of Dayton's scholarly findings and interpretations.
Prethinking:
The passage is fundamentally about presenting and explaining Dayton's research findings and conclusions about women's changing role in colonial Connecticut's legal system. The author isn't arguing against Dayton, evaluating her work, or defending a controversial position - instead, the author is systematically presenting Dayton's view that the simple statistical decline masks a more complex reality. This points toward an answer choice about reporting or presenting an author's (Dayton's) perspective on a phenomenon.
Answer Choices Explained
A
reporting an author's view of a phenomenon
Why It's Right:
- The passage systematically presents Dayton's research findings and interpretations about women's changing legal participation
- The author introduces Dayton as the expert source and then explains her analysis throughout the rest of the passage
- The passage structure moves from presenting Dayton's challenge to simple statistics to explaining her more complex interpretation
- The author doesn't dispute, evaluate, or argue with Dayton's views - just presents them clearly
Key Evidence: "as Cornelia Hughes Dayton notes...these statistics are somewhat deceptive" and "Dayton contends that, although still performing crucial economic services...women remained for the most part outside the new economic and legal culture"
B
disputing the reasons usually given for an unexpected change
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage doesn't dispute any commonly accepted reasons for the change
- Instead of challenging existing explanations, the author presents Dayton's clarification that the apparent "change" (declining percentages) was misleading
- The passage explains what really happened rather than arguing against established interpretations
Common Student Mistakes:
- Does the word "However" in sentence 3 mean the author is disputing something? → No, "However" introduces Dayton's clarification that statistics can be misleading, not a dispute about causes
- Is explaining why statistics are "deceptive" the same as disputing reasons? → No, Dayton clarifies what the numbers really show rather than challenging explanations for change
C
evaluating the conclusions reached by an author
Why It's Wrong:
- The author presents Dayton's conclusions without offering any evaluation or assessment of their validity
- There's no critical analysis, praise, or criticism of Dayton's methodology or findings
- The passage reports Dayton's views as authoritative rather than examining them
Common Student Mistakes:
- Does explaining Dayton's analysis count as evaluating her conclusions? → No, explanation and evaluation are different - the author explains what Dayton found, not whether it's correct
- Is presenting evidence that supports Dayton's view the same as evaluating it? → No, the author presents Dayton's evidence and reasoning without judging their merit
D
assessing the impact of certain legal decisions
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage doesn't discuss any specific legal decisions or court rulings
- The focus is on patterns of participation in legal cases, not on the impact of particular legal changes
- While legal instruments like promissory notes are mentioned, the emphasis is on social and economic patterns, not legal decisions
Common Student Mistakes:
- Since the passage discusses court cases, is it about legal decisions? → No, it's about participation patterns in cases, not about how specific legal decisions affected society
- Are promissory notes a type of legal decision being assessed? → No, promissory notes are financial instruments that enabled new commercial practices, not court decisions
E
defending a controversial point of view
Why It's Wrong:
- Dayton's interpretation isn't presented as controversial - it's offered as scholarly clarification
- The author doesn't suggest anyone disputes Dayton's findings or that they need defending
- The tone is explanatory and informative, not defensive or argumentative
Common Student Mistakes:
- Is showing that statistics are "deceptive" the same as defending a controversial point? → No, clarifying misleading data is standard scholarly analysis, not defending controversy
- Does presenting a complex view instead of a simple one make it controversial? → No, academic research routinely reveals complexity behind simple patterns without being controversial
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More