Reading Comprehension

PT103 · S4 · P4 · Q24 Marriage Contracts

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Reading Comprehension question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

In England before 1660, a husband controlled his wife’s property.

Topic

Whether evolution of women’s property rights in England from the late 17th to 18th benefited women.

Framework

Old / New, Present Debate (author implicitly on board with Staves)

Main Point

Susan Staves challenges the traditional view that changes in marriage contracts in post-1660 England improved women’s property rights, showing instead that legal developments often left women disadvantaged due to persistent judicial biases and inconsistent definitions of property.

(Most Valuable Sentence: - End of Paragraph 1)

P1: Introduction to Property Rights & Staves's Challenge

We’re told that, traditionally, historians saw changes in marriage law after 1660 as a win for women and their property rights. But Susan Staves pushes back, arguing that whatever these improvements were, legal rulings ended up undercutting them for women.

P2: Details of Legal Inconsistencies and Women’s Disadvantage

Staves digs into court cases and calls out a bunch of details showing that changes in the law didn’t actually help women much — differences in how the law treated property for husbands and wives, weird rules that weakened women’s financial independence, and a pattern of judges relying on old, pre-1660 traditions that kept women at a disadvantage.

P3: Broader Implications for Women’s History in the 18th Century

Staves’s research has ripple effects for other historians studying women in this era. She revises her own former views on patriarchy, argues this stuff is more complicated than people (including herself!) thought, and even challenges some assumptions in other historians’ work, especially around widows’ finances and motives for remarriage.

24.

The primary purpose of the passage is to

  1. compare two explanations for the

    Out of Scope: phenomenon

    There's no event that happened for which people are proposing possible causal explanations. There's an overall time period and historians are debating how positive a shift that time period was for women, in regards to property rights. There are two different interpretations of that time period (the traditional historians' view and Staves' view). But they're not explanations for a phenomenon. And the author isn't comparing the two views. He's presenting Staves' view. The other view is only referenced in one sentence.

    3% picked this

  2. Correct

    summarize research that refutes an

    Why this is right

    The passage summarized Staves' research, and that research contests the argument that historians have traditionally made. We might have worried that "refute" was simply too strong. Does the author really think that Staves has effectively disproven the historians' contention that this period was a financial step forward for women? Yes, he does. The argument from historians is that new norms regarding marriage "represented a gain for women". Staves says, "I don't think so. Whatever brief gains may have occurred were undermined by judicial decisions". The first sentence of the 2nd paragraph says "Staves demonstrates that definitions of men's and women's property remained inconsistent -- generally to women's detriment." The end of the 2nd paragraph also says, "Staves shows ... [something bad for women]." Finally, the last paragraph acts like we can trust Staves' work enough that we can think through what implications it has.

    Skill tested: Primary Purpose · how this choice captures the passage's function is the move to repeat next time.

    86% picked this

  3. resolve a long-standing controversy

    Out of Scope: long-standing controversy

    There isn't any long-standing controversy. The view that Staves is countering is one that "historians have traditionally argued". That sounds more like a long-standing consensus than a long-standing controversy.

    4% picked this

  4. suggest that a recent hypothesis

    Out of Scope: recent

    Staves is going after what historians have traditionally argued, not some recent hypothesis.

    6% picked this

  5. provide support for a traditional

    Opposite

    Staves is rebutting the traditional theory, not supporting it.

    1% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free