karan1337 wrote:
raghavakumar85 wrote:
akbism wrote:
Hi,
Please help me in finding the answer for the followings:
7. The author implies that if the increase in the number of women in the work force and the impact of the women’s movement were the main causes of the rise in unionization of public-sector clerical workers, then
(A) more women would hold administrative positions in unions
(B) more women who hold political offices would have positive attitudes toward labor unions
(C) there would be an equivalent rise in unionization of private-sector clerical workers(D) unions would have shown more interest than they have in organizing women
(E) the increase in the number of unionized public-sector clerical workers would have been greater than it has been
It is C. In the last paragraph, if you observe the sentence where the author says that a similar prediction was expected for private sector clerical workers but stated a reason for not happening so. It implies that "the author" implies 'C'.
I understood why C is viable, but i'm confused between options A and D
A seems correct as the passage says that women's number has increased in white collar jobs.
In D, if the movement etc is useful then obviously the unions would have shown more interest in organizing women (1st line of 1st para and last line of last paragraph)
Please explain why these are incorrect.
Thanks!
karan1337,
Question #7 asks what would happen if "the increase in the number of women in the work force and the impact of the women’s movement WERE THE MAIN CAUSES of the rise in unionization of public-sector clerical workers"
Well, the last paragraph is where the author talks about the reasons for the rise in unionization. Those reasons are "more women in the work force", "success in legitimizing women political activisim", etc...
Now if there is
1) an increase in # of women in the work force
2) impact of women's movement..
Then what?
Well that last paragraph goes on to say:
"the absence of any comparable increase in unionization among private-sector clerical workers" -- that means the fact that there was NO increase in unionization in the private sector whereas there WAS an increase in unionization in the PUBLIC sector is because...what?
It's because of some "structural" change. The PUBLIC sector had this structural change but the PRIVATE sector did not.
What kind of "structural" change? A structural change in the multi-occupational public-sector unions themselves. What does that mean? Multi-occupational?
Well the following sentences talks about the occupational distribution between white collar and blue collar jobs. Women mostly are in white collared jobs. Over the past 20 years, the distribution has moved towards white collared jobs, subsequently there has been more females in the job market. More females means we have the increase in female workers we just talked about. How did that come about? Through a structural change toward more white-collared jobs from blue-collared jobs. That structural shift in distribution from blue-collared jobs to white-collared jobs explains why women in labor force increased and why unionization efforts increased in the public sector.
Question #7 is an inference question. The "catalyst" for a rise in public-sector unionization is a structural shift that meant more women in the labor force percentage-wise. The "absence" of unionization in the private sector means the private sector must LACK this structural shift. The private sector must LACK an increase in women labor force participation.
But if the private sector DID have that structural "catalyst" and did have higher women labor force participation, this would result in higher unionization.
Essentially, the passage used "critical reasoning" (specifically "negation") to reason that the structural change was a key factor in affecting unionization.
Critical Reasoning Negation ConceptOriginal: Structural shift --> Unionization (public)
Negation: No structural shift --> No Unionization (private)
If the private sector DID have a structural shift, we would see the outcome of "unionization".
The problem with (A)
(A) more women would hold administrative positions in unions
(A) is too specific. We know that more women are involved under the hypothetical situation brought up in #7. If there is a higher # of women in the work force, then....what?
This is an inference question so whatever that inferred statement is -- among the answer choices -- it must be supported by information in the passage. Where in the passage does it support the fact that women would hold, specifically, more ADMINISTRATIVE positions? No such information in the passage supports this specific claim.
The problem with (D)
(D) unions would have shown more interest than they have in organizing women
Where in the passage does it support the claim that unions would show MORE interest? Heck, we don't even have anywhere in the passage that talks about unions showing interest in organizing women...let alone showing that the interest level would increase. Sure, women are becoming part of these unions and there's more of them, but the passage does not talk about the perspective of the union as a whole and for that entire union, whether or not they would INCREASE their interest in organizing women. Unions do not organize women. Women are the ones that join these unions and participate in them.