NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 26 Apr 2024, 01:25 It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 01:25
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

mgmat CAT

User avatar
rao
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 477
Own Kudos [?]: 299 [0]
Given Kudos: 7
Send PM
mgmat CAT [#permalink] New post   05 Aug 2008, 01:27
In the 1950s, reading was taught to young children primarily through the use of simple primers depicting the middle-class non-adventures of “Dick and Jane.” Rudolph Flesch’s bestselling 1955 book Why Johnny Can’t Read attacked these primers, calling them “horrible, stupid, insipid, … tasteless little readers” and asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.


Which of the following can be inferred about Rudolph Flesch based on the information presented in the passage?
1 He did not like children’s books.
2 He was an advocate of phonetic reading.
3 He was a children’s book critic.
4 He believed that parents should read to their children often.
5 He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children.



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
User avatar
nmohindru
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 158
Own Kudos [?]: 487 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
Send PM
Re: mgmat CAT [#permalink] New post   05 Aug 2008, 01:38
rao_1857 wrote:
In the 1950s, reading was taught to young children primarily through the use of simple primers depicting the middle-class non-adventures of “Dick and Jane.” Rudolph Flesch’s bestselling 1955 book Why Johnny Can’t Read attacked these primers, calling them “horrible, stupid, insipid, … tasteless little readers” and asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.


Which of the following can be inferred about Rudolph Flesch based on the information presented in the passage?
1 He did not like children’s books.
2 He was an advocate of phonetic reading.
3 He was a children’s book critic.
4 He believed that parents should read to their children often.
5 He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children.


IMO E)
avatar
arjunrv
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: mgmat CAT [#permalink] New post   05 Aug 2008, 02:04
I think the right answer is B .
User avatar
rao
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 477
Own Kudos [?]: 299 [0]
Given Kudos: 7
Send PM
Re: mgmat CAT [#permalink] New post   05 Aug 2008, 06:45
nmohindru wrote:
rao_1857 wrote:
In the 1950s, reading was taught to young children primarily through the use of simple primers depicting the middle-class non-adventures of “Dick and Jane.” Rudolph Flesch’s bestselling 1955 book Why Johnny Can’t Read attacked these primers, calling them “horrible, stupid, insipid, … tasteless little readers” and asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.


Which of the following can be inferred about Rudolph Flesch based on the information presented in the passage?
1 He did not like children’s books.
2 He was an advocate of phonetic reading.
3 He was a children’s book critic.
4 He believed that parents should read to their children often.
5 He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children.


IMO E)


Thats right ... even I was thinking that this is the ans as it can directly be infered form last line. But for some reason this is not OA
User avatar
rao
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 477
Own Kudos [?]: 299 [0]
Given Kudos: 7
Send PM
Re: mgmat CAT [#permalink] New post   05 Aug 2008, 06:46
arjunrv wrote:
I think the right answer is B .


Can you please explain and also why E is wrong?
User avatar
bigfernhead
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 524
Own Kudos [?]: 1850 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
GMAT 2: 670
Send PM
Re: mgmat CAT [#permalink] New post   05 Aug 2008, 09:15
Darn it. I chose C over B.

Technically, isn't he critizing children's book?

Why Johnny Can’t Read attacked these primers, calling them “horrible, stupid, insipid, … tasteless little readers” and asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.
avatar
amarKat
Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: mgmat CAT [#permalink] New post   05 Aug 2008, 09:41
IMO B
User avatar
B
jallenmorris
VP
VP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1230
Own Kudos [?]: 951 [0]
Given Kudos: 32
Location: Oklahoma City
Concentration: Life
Schools:Hard Knocks
 Q47  V42
Send PM
Re: mgmat CAT [#permalink] New post   05 Aug 2008, 09:48
B.

The stem states "such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to 'sound out' each word phonetically." The author of this book would only want the children to do this if the author thought it was a good idea, so he must be an advocate of this style of learning to read.


rao_1857 wrote:
In the 1950s, reading was taught to young children primarily through the use of simple primers depicting the middle-class non-adventures of “Dick and Jane.” Rudolph Flesch’s bestselling 1955 book Why Johnny Can’t Read attacked these primers, calling them “horrible, stupid, insipid, … tasteless little readers” and asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.


Which of the following can be inferred about Rudolph Flesch based on the information presented in the passage?
1 He did not like children’s books.
Not supported and too general. Flesch doesn't like the "Dick and Jane" books. This doesn't mean he dislikes all children's books.
2 He was an advocate of phonetic reading.
3 He was a children’s book critic.
This is not supported. He is a critic of this particular book. The stem says nothign about Flesch being a critic of all childrens' books in general.
4 He believed that parents should read to their children often.
He probably does, but nowhere in the stem is this ever mentioned.
5 He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children.
The fact that he wanted the books in the bookstores does not mean the books are too advanced. It merely means he wants children to have more access to books the kids can read. No where in the stem does it state anything about how advanced these books are. Flesh asserts that the Dick and Jane books are horribl, stupid and insipid, but never too advanced. In fact, the stem infers the opposite. These are boring and do not give kids incentive to read. If they were to complex, the reasoning would be different.
User avatar
bigfernhead
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 524
Own Kudos [?]: 1850 [0]
Given Kudos: 5
GMAT 2: 670
Send PM
Re: mgmat CAT [#permalink] New post   05 Aug 2008, 09:56
....asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.

JM, the bolded part makes it seem like he's criticing all books. Don't you think?

jallenmorris wrote:
B.

The stem states "such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to 'sound out' each word phonetically." The author of this book would only want the children to do this if the author thought it was a good idea, so he must be an advocate of this style of learning to read.


rao_1857 wrote:
In the 1950s, reading was taught to young children primarily through the use of simple primers depicting the middle-class non-adventures of “Dick and Jane.” Rudolph Flesch’s bestselling 1955 book Why Johnny Can’t Read attacked these primers, calling them “horrible, stupid, insipid, … tasteless little readers” and asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.


Which of the following can be inferred about Rudolph Flesch based on the information presented in the passage?
1 He did not like children’s books.
Not supported and too general. Flesch doesn't like the "Dick and Jane" books. This doesn't mean he dislikes all children's books.
2 He was an advocate of phonetic reading.
3 He was a children’s book critic.
This is not supported. He is a critic of this particular book. The stem says nothign about Flesch being a critic of all childrens' books in general.
4 He believed that parents should read to their children often.
He probably does, but nowhere in the stem is this ever mentioned.
5 He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children.
The fact that he wanted the books in the bookstores does not mean the books are too advanced. It merely means he wants children to have more access to books the kids can read. No where in the stem does it state anything about how advanced these books are. Flesh asserts that the Dick and Jane books are horribl, stupid and insipid, but never too advanced. In fact, the stem infers the opposite. These are boring and do not give kids incentive to read. If they were to complex, the reasoning would be different.
User avatar
B
jallenmorris
VP
VP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1230
Own Kudos [?]: 951 [0]
Given Kudos: 32
Location: Oklahoma City
Concentration: Life
Schools:Hard Knocks
 Q47  V42
Send PM
Re: mgmat CAT [#permalink] New post   05 Aug 2008, 10:02
No, he's not criticizing all books, he's crticizing the bookstores. It's like criticizing a bad chef because the food he prepares is horrible. We're not criticizing all food, we're criticizing the chef and using the food as an example.

Here, Flesch's comments go beyond the children's Dick and Jane book and to the bookstores. It's kind of a turn in Flesch's complaints, but it's not criticizing all books, just book stores and people's approach in that era of how to teach kids to read.


bigfernhead wrote:
....asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.

JM, the bolded part makes it seem like he's criticing all books. Don't you think?

jallenmorris wrote:
B.

The stem states "such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to 'sound out' each word phonetically." The author of this book would only want the children to do this if the author thought it was a good idea, so he must be an advocate of this style of learning to read.


rao_1857 wrote:
In the 1950s, reading was taught to young children primarily through the use of simple primers depicting the middle-class non-adventures of “Dick and Jane.” Rudolph Flesch’s bestselling 1955 book Why Johnny Can’t Read attacked these primers, calling them “horrible, stupid, insipid, … tasteless little readers” and asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.


Which of the following can be inferred about Rudolph Flesch based on the information presented in the passage?
1 He did not like children’s books.
Not supported and too general. Flesch doesn't like the "Dick and Jane" books. This doesn't mean he dislikes all children's books.
2 He was an advocate of phonetic reading.
3 He was a children’s book critic.
This is not supported. He is a critic of this particular book. The stem says nothign about Flesch being a critic of all childrens' books in general.
4 He believed that parents should read to their children often.
He probably does, but nowhere in the stem is this ever mentioned.
5 He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children.
The fact that he wanted the books in the bookstores does not mean the books are too advanced. It merely means he wants children to have more access to books the kids can read. No where in the stem does it state anything about how advanced these books are. Flesh asserts that the Dick and Jane books are horribl, stupid and insipid, but never too advanced. In fact, the stem infers the opposite. These are boring and do not give kids incentive to read. If they were to complex, the reasoning would be different.
User avatar
rao
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 477
Own Kudos [?]: 299 [0]
Given Kudos: 7
Send PM
Re: mgmat CAT [#permalink] New post   05 Aug 2008, 15:21
Thanks Jallenmorris,

One follow-up question:

not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.

Dosn't that means "He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children."
User avatar
B
jallenmorris
VP
VP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1230
Own Kudos [?]: 951 [0]
Given Kudos: 32
Location: Oklahoma City
Concentration: Life
Schools:Hard Knocks
 Q47  V42
Send PM
Re: mgmat CAT [#permalink] New post   05 Aug 2008, 15:38
There are certainly 2 different ways to interpret that sentence.

1) In terms of children's books, there are books in the book store, but they are too advanced for young children.

OR

2) In terms of children's books, there are no children's books in the book store, so the only ones there are certainly too much for young children.

I think the key here is that in E, the scope changes. Flesch mentions "not a single book in bookstores". This broadens the subject from the Dick and Jane primers to all books in book stores. Then in E, the question authors bring the broad statement about book and correlate it with the Dick and Jane primers, when the author of the stem didn't do this.

rao_1857 wrote:
Thanks Jallenmorris,

One follow-up question:

not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.

Dosn't that means "He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children."
User avatar
rao
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 477
Own Kudos [?]: 299 [0]
Given Kudos: 7
Send PM
Re: mgmat CAT [#permalink] New post   11 Aug 2008, 04:57
jallenmorris wrote:
There are certainly 2 different ways to interpret that sentence.

1) In terms of children's books, there are books in the book store, but they are too advanced for young children.

OR

2) In terms of children's books, there are no children's books in the book store, so the only ones there are certainly too much for young children.

I think the key here is that in E, the scope changes. Flesch mentions "not a single book in bookstores". This broadens the subject from the Dick and Jane primers to all books in book stores. Then in E, the question authors bring the broad statement about book and correlate it with the Dick and Jane primers, when the author of the stem didn't do this.

rao_1857 wrote:
Thanks Jallenmorris,

One follow-up question:

not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.

Dosn't that means "He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children."


Thanks felling better. This is a tricky one!



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: mgmat CAT [#permalink]
11 Aug 2008, 04:57
Moderators:
gmat1393
Retired Moderator
654 posts
u1983
Current Student
733 posts
MikeScarn
Current Student
278 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions