Passage
Until the 1970s, many states mandated that women assume their husbands' surnames upon marriage. Today, women are no longer bound by this constraint, and some, like journalist Ellen Goodman, have argued that future generations will view the tradition of married women changing their names as a kind of madness. That tradition remains strongly ingrained in society, however, and the freedom to reject it comes with social costs.Law professor Elizabeth Emens notes that although cases such as Kruzel v Podell and Dunn v Palermo established in 1975 that a married woman may legally decline to become "Mrs. His Name" (a term used by psychologist Jean M. Twenge), it is still customary for children's surnames to be conferred patrilinearly. Hence, a prospective bride faces a dilemma of symbolic identity; she may either retain her nominal connection to her parents and past self or create a nominal connection to her husband and future children. Meanwhile, Emens continues, "her husband has the same name as his parents and his child and thus continuity across all three generations of his family." Alternatively, a woman might attempt to bridge both worlds through hyphenation, by which "she alone bears the hassle of all the computer forms that apparently can't accommodate such a name, and the people who can't seem to remember it, and the people who think she's constantly trying to make a point about her independence."Other disadvantages are associated with societally atypical naming choices. These difficulties range from the mild, like eliciting confusion when introducing oneself, to the more egregious, such as a woman whose new neighbors would not believe she and her husband were truly married. Men also experience social backlash if they choose to adopt or incorporate their wives' names, such as movie reviewer Sam Van Hallgren, who acquired the "Van" from Carrie Van Deest. Those cases are rare, however; thus, it is women who primarily endure these kinds of burdens.Nevertheless, there are some who see the issue differently. In a 1996 Good Housekeeping article, Peggy Noonan advocates for the value of name changing as reflecting the couple's commitment to marriage. In particular, she writes that the typical "bride in her 20s grew up in the Age of Divorce" and that "[t]his bride and her husband…may have fewer misconceptions than their parents about how important freedom and self-actualization are. They may think other things are more important." Noonan goes on to suggest that "for these brides, taking their husbands' names is a declaration not only of intention, but of faith…faith in yourself and your spouse." Noonan ends her article by applauding the trend of more couples choosing to share a married surname.Emens criticizes this stance. As she argues, equating commitment to marriage with a woman's willingness to change her name makes sense "only when there is no realistic possibility of him or both changing" to create a shared surname. Legal scholar Kelly Snyder faults an argument from Laura Dawn Lewis on similar grounds, observing: "It is unclear why these [reasons] should explain a woman's choice to change her name, but not a man's." Like Emens, Snyder stresses the importance of name to a person's sense of self as well as the legal inequities surrounding traditional marital naming. In her view, the best way to promote a woman's freedom to make a genuine choice about her name is to facilitate men's ability to change names when marrying. If men no longer face arduous legal and social challenges to changing their own names, then the idea of a woman doing so will no longer be seen as the natural default position.
-Jack White, the lead singer of the band The White Stripes, assumed the surname of his wife, Meg White, when they married in 1996. This information would be LEAST consistent with which of the following passage claims?

Question

Passage
Until the 1970s, many states mandated that women assume their husbands' surnames upon marriage.  Today, women are no longer bound by this constraint, and some, like journalist Ellen Goodman, have argued that future generations will view the tradition of married women changing their names as a kind of madness.  That tradition remains strongly ingrained in society, however, and the freedom to reject it comes with social costs.Law professor Elizabeth Emens notes that although cases such as Kruzel v Podell and Dunn v Palermo established in 1975 that a married woman may legally decline to become "Mrs. His Name" (a term used by psychologist Jean M. Twenge), it is still customary for children's surnames to be conferred patrilinearly.  Hence, a prospective bride faces a dilemma of symbolic identity; she may either retain her nominal connection to her parents and past self or create a nominal connection to her husband and future children.  Meanwhile, Emens continues, "her husband has the same name as his parents and his child and thus continuity across all three generations of his family."  Alternatively, a woman might attempt to bridge both worlds through hyphenation, by which "she alone bears the hassle of all the computer forms that apparently can't accommodate such a name, and the people who can't seem to remember it, and the people who think she's constantly trying to make a point about her independence."Other disadvantages are associated with societally atypical naming choices.  These difficulties range from the mild, like eliciting confusion when introducing oneself, to the more egregious, such as a woman whose new neighbors would not believe she and her husband were truly married.  Men also experience social backlash if they choose to adopt or incorporate their wives' names, such as movie reviewer Sam Van Hallgren, who acquired the "Van" from Carrie Van Deest.  Those cases are rare, however; thus, it is women who primarily endure these kinds of burdens.Nevertheless, there are some who see the issue differently.  In a 1996 Good Housekeeping article, Peggy Noonan advocates for the value of name changing as reflecting the couple's commitment to marriage.  In particular, she writes that the typical "bride in her 20s grew up in the Age of Divorce" and that "[t]his bride and her husband…may have fewer misconceptions than their parents about how important freedom and self-actualization are.  They may think other things are more important."  Noonan goes on to suggest that "for these brides, taking their husbands' names is a declaration not only of intention, but of faith…faith in yourself and your spouse."  Noonan ends her article by applauding the trend of more couples choosing to share a married surname.Emens criticizes this stance.  As she argues, equating commitment to marriage with a woman's willingness to change her name makes sense "only when there is no realistic possibility of him or both changing" to create a shared surname.  Legal scholar Kelly Snyder faults an argument from Laura Dawn Lewis on similar grounds, observing: "It is unclear why these [reasons] should explain a woman's choice to change her name, but not a man's."  Like Emens, Snyder stresses the importance of name to a person's sense of self as well as the legal inequities surrounding traditional marital naming.  In her view, the best way to promote a woman's freedom to make a genuine choice about her name is to facilitate men's ability to change names when marrying.  If men no longer face arduous legal and social challenges to changing their own names, then the idea of a woman doing so will no longer be seen as the natural default position.
-Jack White, the lead singer of the band The White Stripes, assumed the surname of his wife, Meg White, when they married in 1996.  This information would be LEAST consistent with which of the following passage claims?

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The passage states that a marrying woman faces a "dilemma of symbolic identity," whereas a man "'has the same name as his parents and his child and thus continuity across all three generations of his family'" (Paragraph 2). Alternatively, a woman might take a hyphenated name, for which "'she alone bears the hassle'" (Paragraph 2) associated with changing to a nontraditional formulation. The passage further conveys that although "[m]en also experience social backlash if they choose to adopt or incorporate their wives' names…[t]hose cases are rare…; thus, it is women who primarily endure these kinds of burdens" (Paragraph 3). However, Jack White is a man who assumed his wife's surname, in contrast to what the passage says is typical. Accordingly, it is he (rather than his wife) who would have faced any difficulties arising from this "societally atypical" naming choice (Paragraph 3). Consequently, this information is least consistent with the passage claim that the burdens associated with marital naming are suffered primarily by women. By contrast, the fact that Jack White assumed his wife's surname is more consistent with each of the following passage claims: A commitment to marriage is a good reason for both men and women to change their names (Choice A). A man (such as Jack White) who changes his name upon marriage exemplifies the idea that both men and women can show commitment to marriage by adopting a new surname. In most cases, children are given their father's surname (Choice B). Jack White taking his wife's surname constitutes an exception to the societal convention of men keeping their surnames at marriage. However, it does not constitute an exception to the societal convention of children being given their father's surname. There are many inequities surrounding marital naming (Choice D). Although Jack White's decision to take his wife's name could be viewed as promoting greater equality between men and women, that decision nonetheless represents an unequal situation surrounding marital naming. In this case, sharing a married surname still resulted in one person (the husband) losing the "nominal connection to [his] parents and past self" (Paragraph 2).

Passage Until the 1970s, Many States Mandated That Women Assume Their