Passage 1 is adapted from Talleyrand et al., Report on Public Instruction. Originally published in 1791. Passage 2 is adapted from Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Originally published in 1792. Talleyrand was a French diplomat; the Report was a plan for national education. Wollstonecraft, a British novelist and political writer, wrote Vindication in response to Talleyrand. Passage 1 -That half the human race is excluded by the other half from any participation in government; that they are native by birth but foreign by law in the very land where they were born; and that they are property owners yet have no direct influence or representation: are all political phenomena apparently impossible to explain on abstract principle. But on another level of ideas, the question changes and may be easily resolved. The purpose of all these institutions must be the happiness of the greatest number. Everything that leads us farther from this purpose is in error; everything that brings us closer is truth. If the exclusion from public employments decreed against women leads to a greater sum of mutual happiness for the two sexes, then this becomes a law that all Societies have been compelled to acknowledge and sanction. Any other ambition would be a reversal of our primary destinies; and it will never be in women's interest to change the assignment they have received. It seems to us incontestable that our common happiness, above all that of women, requires that they never aspire to the exercise of political rights and functions. Here we must seek their interests in the wishes of nature. Is it not apparent, that their delicate constitutions, their peaceful inclinations, and the many duties of motherhood, set them apart from strenuous habits and onerous duties, and summon them to gentle occupations and the cares of the home? And is it not evident that the great conserving principle of Societies, which makes the division of powers a source of harmony, has been expressed and revealed by nature itself, when it divided the functions of the two sexes in so obviously distinct a manner? This is sufficient; we need not invoke principles that are inapplicable to the question. Let us not make rivals of life's companions. You must, you truly must allow the persistence of a union that no interest, no rivalry, can possibly undo. Understand that the good of all demands this of you. Passage 2 -Contending for the rights of woman, my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if she be not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will stop the progress of knowledge and virtue; for truth must be common to all, or it will be inefficacious with respect to its influence on general practice. And how can woman be expected to co-operate unless she know why she ought to be virtuous? unless freedom strengthen her reason till she comprehend her duty, and see in what manner it is connected with her real good? If children are to be educated to understand the true principle of patriotism, their mother must be a patriot; and the love of mankind, from which an orderly train of virtues spring, can only be produced by considering the moral and civil interest of mankind; but the education and situation of woman, at present, shuts her out from such investigations... Consider, sir, dispassionately, these observations `" for a glimpse of this truth seemed to open before you when you observed, `that to see one half of the human race excluded by the other from all participation of government, was a political phenomenon that, according to abstract principles, it was impossible to explain.` If so, on what does your constitution rest? If the abstract rights of man will bear discussion and explanation, those of woman, by a parity of reasoning, will not shrink from the same test: though a different opinion prevails in this country, built on the very arguments which you use to justify the oppression of woman `" prescription. Consider `" I address you as a legislator `" whether, when men contend for their freedom, and to be allowed to judge for themselves respecting their own happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjust to subjugate women, even though you firmly believe that you are acting in the manner best calculated to promote their happiness? Who made man the exclusive judge, if woman partake with him the gift of reason? In this style, argue tyrants of every denomination, from the weak king to the weak father of a family; they are all eager to crush reason; yet always assert that they usurp its throne only to be useful. Do you not act a similar part, when you force all women, by denying them civil and political rights, to remain immured in their families groping in the dark? The authors of both passages would most likely agree with which of the following statements about women in the eighteenth century?
- Their natural preferences were the same as those of men.
- They needed a good education to be successful in society.
- They were just as happy in life as men were.
- They generally enjoyed fewer rights than men did.
Answer(s): D
Explanation:
Correct answer: D – They generally enjoyed fewer rights than men did.
Why D is the only statement both authors would endorse
Passage 1 (Talleyrand) explicitly frames women’s exclusion from public office as a “political phenomenon” that must be accepted because “our common happiness… requires that they never aspire to the exercise of political rights and functions.” The language treats the denial of political rights as a natural, pre-ordained condition, implying that women’s legal status is deliberately limited. Passage 2 (Wollstonecraft) confronts the same reality, asking “who made man the exclusive judge, if woman partake with him the gift of reason?” She points out that women are “immured in their families” and denied “civil and political rights.” Her critique is founded on the injustice of a system that “subjugates women” while claiming to promote their happiness. Both passages therefore share the premise that, in the eighteenth-century societal order, women possessed a subordinate legal and political status compared with men. This is precisely what option D states.
Why the other options do not fit
A: “Their natural preferences were the same as those of men.” Talleyrand argues the opposite: women’s “delicate constitutions, peaceful inclinations, and the many duties of motherhood” set them apart from the “strenuous habits” expected of men. Wollstonecraft likewise stresses that women’s education must cultivate reason and moral agency, which she sees as distinct from the prevailing male model. Hence, the authors do not claim identical natural preferences.
B: “They needed a good education to be successful in society.” While Wollstonecraft champions female education, she does so to enable women to fulfill their moral and social duties, not merely to achieve personal success. Talleyrand never discusses education as a prerequisite for women’s societal success; instead, he treats the existing limited education as sufficient for their “gentle occupations.” Therefore, the statement overstates a point that only one author emphasizes.
C: “They were just as happy in life as men were.” Both texts argue that women’s happiness is contingent on their exclusion from public life. Talleyrand claims that “the good of all demands” women remain in domestic roles, and Wollstonecraft suggests that without political rights women cannot fully contribute to the “progress of knowledge and virtue.” The authors imply that true happiness for women is tied to their prescribed, restricted roles, not to parity in happiness with men.
Conclusion The only option that captures the shared view of both authors—that women in the eighteenth century were systematically denied the same political and civil rights enjoyed by men—is D .
Reference:
Talleyrand, Report on Public Instruction (1791). Available at: https://archive.org/details/reportonpublicin00tall Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792). Available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1241 (Project Gutenberg edition)
Show Answer Next Question