Maurice Duverger

This topic has expert replies
Legendary Member
Posts: 809
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:10 pm
Thanked: 50 times
Followed by:4 members

Maurice Duverger

by akhpad » Sun Oct 24, 2010 3:25 am
Source: OG 12 Ed

In 1955 Maurice Duverger published The
Political Role of Women, the first behavioralist,
multinational comparison of women's electoral
participation ever to use election data and survey
data together. His study analyzed women's patterns
of voting, political candidacy, and political activism
in four European countries during the first half of
the twentieth century. Duverger's research findings
were that women voted somewhat less frequently
than men (the difference narrowing the longer
women had the vote) and were slightly more
conservative.

Duverger's work set an early standard for the
sensitive analysis of women's electoral activities.
Moreover, to Duverger's credit, he placed his
findings in the context of many of the historical
processes that had shaped these activities.
However, since these contexts have changed
over time, Duverger's approach has proved more
durable than his actual findings. In addition,
Duverger's discussion of his findings was hampered
by his failure to consider certain specific factors
important to women's electoral participation
at the time he collected his data: the influence
of political regimes, the effects of economic
factors, and the ramifications of political and
social relations between women and men. Given
this failure, Duverger's study foreshadowed the
enduring limitations of the behavioralist approach
to the multinational study of women's political
participation.

94. The author implies that Duverger's actual findings are
(A) limited because they focus on only four countries
(B) inaccurate in their description of the four countries in the early 1950s
(C) out-of-date in that they are inapplicable in the four countries today
(D) flawed because they are based on unsound data
(E) biased by Duverger's political beliefs

OA: C

Why is it? I can't understand from OE. Any explanation?????

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1893
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 11:48 pm
Thanked: 215 times
Followed by:7 members

by kvcpk » Sun Oct 24, 2010 5:14 am
Ok..Let me take a shot at this one:

Structure:
First Para: Introducing Duverger's work on Women's electoral participation.
Second Para: The positives & negatives of Duverger's work.

Scope: Duverger's work on women's electoral paricipation in 4 countries.

Tone: Neutral

Purpose: Analysing the work of Duverger in light of its relevance to the current state of the four contries.

The author implies that Duverger's actual findings are :

We can eliminate some answer choices based on tone or scope of the passage.

Tone is neutral. Author never looked like he is completely supporting or completely opposing Duverger's work.

Option E can be eliminated based on this. Also, it is out of scope because Duverger's political beliefs are not presented in the passage.

Option A can be eliminated because it goes out of scope and refers to countries other than the 4 mentioned in the passage.

Now, let us look back into the passage where the author mentions about actual findings.
7th line in 2nd para talks about it.
"Duverger's approach has proved more durable than his actual findings."

This means that the findings lost their relevance to the current state. But, his approach is still sound.
Option C exactly reflects this.

However, let us see other options:

From above we can eliminate option B because, the findings were actually correct for early 1950s.

At first glance, Option D is a close competitor. But, Option D says that Actual findings are flawed. This is not correct. Actual findings are correct. But they lost their relevance to the current state.

Hence pick C.

Hope this helps!!
"Once you start working on something,
don't be afraid of failure and don't abandon it.
People who work sincerely are the happiest."
Chanakya quotes (Indian politician, strategist and writer, 350 BC-275BC)

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:30 pm
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by aspire_mba2013 » Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:45 am
Let me try on this....

In 1955 Maurice Duverger published The
Political Role of Women, the first behavioralist,
multinational comparison of women’s electoral
participation ever to use election data and survey
data together. His study analyzed women’s patterns
of voting, political candidacy, and political activism
in four European countries during the first half of
the twentieth century. Duverger’s research findings
were that women voted somewhat less frequently
than men (the difference narrowing the longer
women had the vote) and were slightly more
conservative.

( First just introduces the Subject --- Maurice Duverger and first behavioralist ) and some factors that he studied.


Duverger’s work set an early standard for the
sensitive analysis of women’s electoral activities.
Moreover, to Duverger’s credit, he placed his
findings in the context of many of the historical
processes that had shaped these activities.

However, since these contexts have changed
over time
, Duverger’s approach has proved more
durable than his actual findings.

( here its very clear - his approach is better than his actual work)

In addition,
( the writer continues - in the same tone

Duverger’s discussion of his findings was hampered
by his failure to consider certain

( I am highlighting this part , although nothing has been asked about it, but its good to keep such information under radar)

specific factors important to women’s electoral participation
at the time he collected his data:
the influence of political regimes,
the effects of economic factors,
and the ramifications of political and
social relations between women and men.

Given this failure, Duverger’s study foreshadowed the
enduring limitations of the behavioralist approach
to the multinational study of women’s political
participation.

94. The author implies that Duverger’s actual findings are
(A) limited because they focus on only four countries ( Fewer countries are not a limiting factor)

(B) inaccurate in their description of the four countries in the early 1950s
( If it was inaccurate the passage won't even talk about it - four countries are not a limiting factor)

(C) out-of-date in that they are inapplicable in the four countries today ( CORRECT)


(D) flawed because they are based on unsound data
Tip - refer line number where this is mentioned
he placed his
findings in the context of many of the historical
processes Processes is different from data - nowhere data is mentioned - so this is not a correct answer




(E) biased by Duverger’s political beliefs

Out of Scope - no biasing - SORRY



Let me know , if this helps.......
Last edited by aspire_mba2013 on Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:22 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:30 pm
Thanked: 3 times
Followed by:1 members

by aspire_mba2013 » Thu Oct 28, 2010 10:54 am
Another important key word

Moreover, to Duverger’s credit, he placed his
findings in the context of many of the historical
processes that had shaped these activities.

(C) out-of-date in that they are inapplicable in the four countries today

This is correct answer - as HISTORICAL processes are outdated TODAY.

HISTORICAL in the passage and TODAY in the Option C , Complements each other.