In her account of unmarried women's experiences in colonial Philadelphia, Wulf argues that educated young women, particularly Quakers, engaged in...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Official Guide
...
...
Post a Query
In her account of unmarried women's experiences in colonial Philadelphia, Wulf argues that educated young women, particularly Quakers, engaged in resistance to patriarchal marriage by exchanging poetry critical of marriage, copying verse into their commonplace books. Wulf suggests that this critique circulated beyond the daughters of the Quaker elite and middle class, whose commonplace books she mines, proposing that Quaker schools brought it to many poor female students of diverse backgrounds.
Here Wulf probably overstates Quaker schools' impact. At least three years' study would be necessary to achieve the literacy competence necessary to grapple with the material she analyzes. In 1765, the year Wulf uses to demonstrate the diversity of Philadelphia's Quaker schools, 128 students enrolled in these schools. Refining Wulf's numbers by the information she provides on religious affiliation, gender, and length of study, it appears that only about 17 poor non-quaker girls were educated in Philadelphia's Quaker schools for three years or longer. While Wulf is correct that a critique of patriarchal marriage circulated broadly, Quaker schools probably cannot be credited with instilling these ideas in the lower classes. Popular literary satires on marriage had already landed on fertile ground in a multiethnic population that embodied a wide range of marital beliefs and practices. These ethnic- and class-based traditions themselves challenged the legitimacy of patriarchal marriage.
Ques. 1/4
The primary purpose of the passage is to
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| In her account of unmarried women's experiences in colonial Philadelphia, Wulf argues that educated young women, particularly Quakers, engaged in resistance to patriarchal marriage by exchanging poetry critical of marriage, copying verse into their commonplace books. | What it says: Scholar named Wulf claims that educated young women (especially Quakers) in colonial Philadelphia rebelled against traditional marriage expectations by sharing and collecting anti-marriage poetry. What it does: Introduces the main research claim and sets up the topic Source/Type: Researcher's claim/argument (Wulf's position) Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our opening - establishes the foundation for everything that follows Visualization: Colonial Philadelphia → Educated Young Women (especially Quakers) → Shared Anti-Marriage Poetry → This = Resistance to Traditional Marriage What We Know So Far: Wulf believes educated women used poetry to resist marriage norms What We Don't Know Yet: Whether this claim is correct, what evidence supports it, what the author of this passage thinks |
| Wulf suggests that this critique circulated beyond the daughters of the Quaker elite and middle class, whose commonplace books she mines, proposing that Quaker schools brought it to many poor female students of diverse backgrounds. | What it says: Wulf claims the anti-marriage poetry didn't just stay with rich Quaker girls - she thinks Quaker schools spread these ideas to poor girls from different backgrounds too. What it does: Extends Wulf's argument - shows she thinks the influence was broader than just wealthy families Source/Type: Still Wulf's claim/proposal Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds directly on sentence 1 - takes Wulf's basic claim and expands its scope. Shows Wulf arguing for WIDER impact, not just among elites. Visualization: Sentence 1: Elite/Middle Class Quaker Girls ← Anti-Marriage Poetry Sentence 2: Elite Girls → Quaker Schools → Poor Girls from Different Backgrounds (Wulf claims poetry influence spread downward through education) What We Know So Far: Wulf believes anti-marriage poetry spread from elite Quaker women to poor women via Quaker schools What We Don't Know Yet: Any evidence for this, whether it's true, what our passage author thinks |
| Here Wulf probably overstates Quaker schools' impact. | What it says: The author of this passage thinks Wulf is wrong - she's exaggerating how much influence Quaker schools actually had. What it does: Introduces the passage author's disagreement with Wulf Source/Type: Passage author's opinion/criticism Connection to Previous Sentences: This is a direct challenge to what we just read in sentence 2. The author is saying "Not so fast" to Wulf's claim about schools spreading anti-marriage ideas to poor women. Reading Strategy Insight: This is the pivot point! Now we know the passage structure: Present Wulf's claim → Challenge it. Everything that follows will likely provide evidence for why Wulf is wrong. What We Know So Far: Wulf claims Quaker schools spread anti-marriage poetry to poor women, but our author disagrees What We Don't Know Yet: What evidence the author has for disagreeing |
| At least three years' study would be necessary to achieve the literacy competence necessary to grapple with the material she analyzes. | What it says: To understand the anti-marriage poetry Wulf studied, students would need at least 3 years of education to become literate enough. What it does: Begins the evidence for why Wulf is wrong - sets up a literacy requirement Source/Type: Factual requirement/logical reasoning Connection to Previous Sentences: This provides the first piece of evidence for the challenge in sentence 3. The logic is building: If you need 3+ years to understand the poetry, then how many poor students actually got 3+ years? Visualization: Complex Anti-Marriage Poetry ← Requires 3+ Years Education ← How Many Poor Students Had This? Reading Strategy Insight: The author is setting up a numbers argument - this feels more concrete than abstract literary analysis! |
| In 1765, the year Wulf uses to demonstrate the diversity of Philadelphia's Quaker schools, 128 students enrolled in these schools. | What it says: In 1765 (Wulf's example year for diverse schools), 128 total students were in Philadelphia's Quaker schools. What it does: Provides the starting number for the mathematical argument against Wulf Source/Type: Historical fact/data Connection to Previous Sentences: This continues building the evidence from sentence 4. We have: Need 3+ years education → Here's how many total students there were → (Next we'll see how few actually qualify) Visualization: 1765 Quaker Schools: 128 Total Students ↓ (How many of these were poor girls who stayed 3+ years?) Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here! The author is building a simple numbers case, not introducing complex new concepts. |
| Refining Wulf's numbers by the information she provides on religious affiliation, gender, and length of study, it appears that only about 17 poor non-quaker girls were educated in Philadelphia's Quaker schools for three years or longer. | What it says: When you filter the 128 students by religion, gender, and time spent in school, only about 17 poor non-Quaker girls actually got 3+ years of education. What it does: Delivers the knockout punch to Wulf's argument with specific numbers Source/Type: Data analysis/mathematical conclusion Connection to Previous Sentences: This completes the mathematical argument built since sentence 4: - Need 3+ years education (sentence 4) - 128 total students (sentence 5) - Only 17 poor non-Quaker girls with 3+ years (sentence 6) Visualization: 128 Total Students → Filter by: Poor + Non-Quaker + Female + 3+ Years → 17 Students 17 students cannot create "broad circulation" of ideas Reading Strategy Insight: This is satisfying, not confusing! The numbers make the author's point crystal clear. |
| While Wulf is correct that a critique of patriarchal marriage circulated broadly, Quaker schools probably cannot be credited with instilling these ideas in the lower classes. | What it says: The author agrees that anti-marriage ideas DID spread widely, but disagrees that Quaker schools were responsible for spreading them to poor people. What it does: Restates and clarifies the main disagreement - shows exactly what the author accepts vs. rejects from Wulf's claims Source/Type: Author's conclusion/balanced judgment Connection to Previous Sentences: This is NOT new complexity! It's a clear summary of the argument so far: - Agrees with Wulf: Ideas did circulate broadly ✓ - Disagrees with Wulf: Schools weren't the cause ✗ - Evidence: Only 17 students (sentences 4-6) Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is simplification, not new complexity! The author is helping by clearly stating what's accepted vs. rejected. What We Know So Far: Anti-marriage ideas spread widely, but not through Quaker schools (too few students) |
| Popular literary satires on marriage had already landed on fertile ground in a multiethnic population that embodied a wide range of marital beliefs and practices. | What it says: Marriage satires were already popular because Philadelphia had people from many different ethnic groups with different ideas about marriage. What it does: Begins explaining the REAL reason anti-marriage ideas spread (not schools, but diverse population) Source/Type: Author's alternative explanation Connection to Previous Sentences: This provides the alternative explanation to replace Wulf's school theory: - Sentence 7: Schools weren't responsible - Sentence 8: Here's what WAS responsible - diverse population already receptive to anti-marriage ideas Visualization: Philadelphia = Many Ethnic Groups → Different Marriage Beliefs → Receptive Audience for Anti-Marriage Satires → Ideas Spread Naturally Reading Strategy Insight: This completes the "not X, but Y" pattern - reject Wulf's explanation, provide alternative. |
| These ethnic- and class-based traditions themselves challenged the legitimacy of patriarchal marriage. | What it says: The different cultural and economic backgrounds of Philadelphia's population naturally created opposition to traditional marriage - no schools needed. What it does: Reinforces and concludes the alternative explanation Source/Type: Author's final explanatory point Connection to Previous Sentences: This restates sentence 8 in simpler terms: - Sentence 8: Diverse population was receptive to anti-marriage satires - Sentence 9: Because their own traditions already challenged traditional marriage Reading Strategy Insight: This is pure reinforcement! The author ends by making the alternative explanation even clearer - the diverse traditions themselves were anti-patriarchal. Final Summary: ✗ Wulf's claim: Quaker schools spread anti-marriage ideas ✓ Reality: Only 17 qualifying students ✓ Alternative: Diverse ethnic traditions naturally opposed patriarchal marriage |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To challenge a scholar's claim by showing that her explanation for how anti-marriage ideas spread in colonial Philadelphia is wrong and offering a better explanation.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by first presenting a claim and then systematically dismantling it:
- First, the author explains Wulf's argument that educated Quaker women shared anti-marriage poetry and that this critique spread to poor students through Quaker schools.
- Next, the author states their disagreement, saying Wulf overstates the impact of Quaker schools.
- Then, the author proves their point with numbers, showing that only 17 poor non-Quaker girls actually got enough education to understand the poetry Wulf studied.
- Finally, the author offers their own explanation for why anti-marriage ideas spread widely - Philadelphia's diverse population already had cultural traditions that opposed traditional marriage.
Main Point:
While anti-marriage ideas did spread widely in colonial Philadelphia, they didn't spread through Quaker schools like Wulf claims. Instead, they spread because the city's diverse ethnic groups already had their own traditions that challenged traditional marriage.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify the primary purpose of the passage - essentially, what is the author's main goal in writing this passage? We need to look at the overall structure and determine what the author is fundamentally trying to accomplish.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we can see a clear structure:
- The author presents Wulf's two-part argument (elite Quaker women shared anti-marriage poetry, and this spread to poor students through Quaker schools)
- The author directly challenges one specific aspect: "Here Wulf probably overstates Quaker schools' impact"
- The author provides mathematical evidence (only 17 poor non-Quaker girls had sufficient education)
- The author offers an alternative explanation (diverse ethnic traditions already challenged patriarchal marriage)
Crucially, the passage analysis shows that the author AGREES with Wulf that "a critique of patriarchal marriage circulated broadly" but DISAGREES specifically with "Quaker schools probably cannot be credited with instilling these ideas in the lower classes."
Prethinking:
The passage structure reveals that this is NOT a wholesale rejection of Wulf's work, but a targeted criticism of ONE specific claim - that Quaker schools were the mechanism for spreading anti-marriage ideas to poor women. The author accepts the broader premise but challenges the explanation for how it happened. This suggests the correct answer should focus on:
- Arguing against ONE ASPECT of Wulf's account
- Specifically about HOW ideas were disseminated (the mechanism)
- Not rejecting everything Wulf said, just the school-based explanation
Answer Choices Explained
A
argue against one aspect of Wulf's account of how ideas critical of marriage were disseminated among young women in colonial Philadelphia
Why It's Right:
• The passage specifically challenges Wulf's claim about Quaker schools spreading ideas to poor women, not her entire account
• The phrase "one aspect" perfectly captures that the author agrees with Wulf about broad circulation but disagrees about the mechanism
• "How ideas critical of marriage were disseminated" directly matches the core disagreement about whether schools or ethnic traditions were responsible
• The mathematical evidence (only 17 qualifying students) directly supports this focused challenge
Key Evidence: "While Wulf is correct that a critique of patriarchal marriage circulated broadly, Quaker schools probably cannot be credited with instilling these ideas in the lower classes."
B
discuss Wulf's interpretation of the significance for educated young women in colonial Philadelphia of the poetry they copied into their commonplace books
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage does mention the poetry and commonplace books, but this is just setup for the real argument
• The author doesn't challenge Wulf's interpretation of the poetry's significance - the author accepts that it represented resistance
• The focus is on dissemination mechanism (schools vs. ethnic traditions), not on interpreting the poetry itself
C
counter Wulf's assertions about the impact of the multiethnic character of colonial Philadelphia's population on the prevalent views about marriage
Why It's Wrong:
• The author actually AGREES with Wulf about the impact of Philadelphia's multiethnic character
• The author uses ethnic diversity as the ALTERNATIVE explanation for why anti-marriage ideas spread
• The passage supports, rather than counters, the idea that multiethnic populations affected marriage views
D
present data to undermine Wulf's assessment of the diversity of the student body in Quaker schools in colonial Philadelphia
Why It's Wrong:
• The author doesn't challenge Wulf's assessment of diversity - they use Wulf's own data
• The mathematical analysis (128 total students) accepts Wulf's diversity claims as accurate
• The issue isn't whether schools were diverse, but whether diverse schools could have the impact Wulf claims
E
challenge Wulf's conclusion that a critique of marriage was prevalent among young women of all social classes in colonial Philadelphia
Why It's Wrong:
• The author explicitly states "Wulf is correct that a critique of patriarchal marriage circulated broadly"
• The disagreement is about HOW it spread (schools vs. ethnic traditions), not WHETHER it was prevalent
• The author accepts the conclusion about prevalence but rejects the explanation for it
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More