zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi Friends and
mikemcgarry,
"The author of the passage asserts which of the following about women reformers who tried to abolish child labor?
A They alienated working-class mothers by attempting to enlist them in agitating for progressive causes.
B They underestimated the prevalence of child labor among the working classes.
C They were correct in their conviction that child labor was deplorable but shortsighted about the impact of child labor legislation on working-class families.
D They were aggressive in their attempts to enforce child labor legislation, but were unable to prevent working-class families from circumventing them.
E They were prevented by their nearly total disenfranchisement from making significant progress in child labor reform"
I have a problem with D in this question. First I struggled C and D, although I got C eventually, but I have no idea what's problem with D,
I read the OA, it says "
the reformers' activities involved prompted legislation; there is no evidence in the passage that the
reformers themselves attempted to enforce these laws."
Would you please help how should I figure out it is "
the reformers' activities, not
reformers themselves thanks in advance
have a nice day
>_~
Dear
zoezhuyan,
I'm happy to respond.
My friend, this is case in which what you are missing is not really in the passage but in an understanding of how the real world works.
Let's talk a very different issue in US history. In the 1960s, there were massive
civil rights demonstrations, and in a great triumph for democracy, these demonstrators succeeded in getting
civil rights legislation. You see, the way at least American society works is---before the law has been passed, the demonstrators have a lot of work to do. They have to continue to make the argument and attempt to sway public opinion. Once the law is passed, the job of those demonstrators is 100% done. They go home. Now that there's a law, it's entirely up to the police and the courts to enforce the law. That's a very different job. Police and courts simply enforce whatever the law is. By contrast, demonstrators and activists are trying to change what is the law. Two completely different jobs. This is very clear from background knowledge.
I realize that this all might be a bit unfamiliar to you, since you grew up in China. I will say, insofar as the GMAT has passages about American history, and especially if you ever plan to come to business school in the USA, it would be very good to have at least a passing familiarity with the various US civil right movements of the past century. Despite it's profession of equality when it was founded 200+ years ago, the USA has had atrocious inequalities of race, gender, etc. in its history, and even in 2016, it is far from a perfect equality for everyone. I think that sad fact is very important for every foreign citizen coming to live in the US to appreciate.
All of this is implied in this this passage. The women reformers were concerned with getting a law passed: we are a bit unclear on exactly how they made their case, but somehow, they succeed in getting this law passed. Once a law is passed, it's the job of the police and the courts to enforce the law. It's not explicitly stated in the passage, but again it's good background knowledge to know that, unlike in 2016, absolutely no woman was a police officer or a judge in the USA in the late 1800s. Of course these women were not involved in enforcing the law once it had been passed. After all, enforcing the law is a very very different job from getting a new law passed.
How does it work in China? Presumably the people who make the law and the people who enforce the law are usually not the same people, right? Similarly, if someone gets the government to change the law, that same person is not out there enforcing the law, right?
This sense of what happens in the real world is crucial for understanding GMAT CR and RC. See:
[urlhttps://
magoosh.com/gmat/2014/gmat-critical-reasoning-and-outside-knowledge/]GMAT Critical Reasoning and Outside Knowledge[/url]
A similar logic applies to the GMAT RC.
Does all this make sense?
Mike