RALPH KETCHAM

rosh26 · Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject: RALPH KETCHAM

Please help with this question...not sure why this LEAST supports it

rosh26 · Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject:

Here is the rest

Stacey Koprince · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:01 am Post subject:

Got a PM requesting that I look at this. Tough one!

Summary of passage:
P1
K argues that 1st 6 Ps differed for later Ps b/c 1st 6 had values from "classical humanist" (CH) tradition.
CH: gov't to make people better citizens. public good. NOT private desires / interests. Called to office; not supposed to run. Didn't like political parties b/c partial, self-interested.

P2
BUT, from start, CH was undermined by commerce. K does "rightly" show this from 7th P forward. Things became more partisan. CH became assoc. with privilege, aristocracy. K likes CH and doesn't realize it had drawbacks too. Eg, CH incompatible with freedom of speech, etc.

General point: CH was both good and bad, not all good as K argues

Question: what doesn't support the AUTHOR'S argument about commerce during J's presidency? This is sort of a cross between RC and a classic CR question - rare on the GMAT, but they can happen. So we have to respond accordingly. Take each statement and imagine that the author of the passage added it to the second paragraph - would that help the author's argument? If so, it's not the right answer.

Note: the passage author's argument - not Ketcham's POV.
look in P2
passage says:
"Jackson's tenure [was] the culmination of the acceptance of party, commerce, and individualism."
culmination = something that started before that point in time but really peaked at that time.
"nonpartisanship lost its relevance"
"under VanBuren, [the] party gained a new legitimacy"

Because the question is a LEAST question, four of the answers should provide support for the author's argument and one should not.

A) Jackson was for commerce. That wouldn't make much sense if "many" of his supporters were against it / resisted it.

B) Jackson's tenure was characterized by "the acceptance of party" whereas, prior to that time, "parties were partial, self-interested... serving something other than the transcendent public good." So if people didn't protest parties as much during his presidency, that would make sense - political parties were now accepted.

C) Jackson's tenure was also characterized by "the acceptance of... commerce." If people started using money more during Jackson's tenure, then that would make sense because commerce was now more accepted.

D) Jackson supported commerce. Groups that did support commerce would likely be for Jackson, then, and groups that did not support commerce would most likely NOT be for Jackson. If the southerners didn't like commerce, then it would make sense that they didn't support Jackson as much.

E) According to the passage, Washington was a proponent of CH. Jackson was not - he supported commerce, political parties, etc. CH is described in the passage as the "classical" point of view. Therefore, it makes sense to say that Jackson was not as strong a supporter of the classical POV as Washington was.

rosh26 · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:14 pm Post subject:

Thanks for the breakdown Stacey - very thorough!