Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
14 May 2021, 20:14
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question 1
mSKR
To discount something is to disregard that thing, or to believe that it's unimportant.
is my understanding correct?So, if someone DOESN'T discount something, it means that they DO think that that thing is important. The passage tells us that the WIDC "did not discount the white lead trade's potential health dangers," so we know that the WIDC thought that white lead WAS dangerous for the health of workers.
Here's (A):
Quote:
We don't hear directly about WIDC's thoughts on existing safety regulations. However, we know that the WIDC DID believe that white lead was dangerous to health -- but that despite this belief, the group opposed the legislation. So, we certainly can't conclude that the WIDC "believed that the existing safety regulations were adequate to protect women's health." The group just thought that opposing the restrictive legislation overrode their concerns about health.
In addition, the WTUL had an issue with how the existing safety regulations were (or were not) enforced, not necessarily with the regulations themselves. So there's not solid evidence that (A) captures the WTUL's position, either.
Eliminate (A).
Here's (C):
Quote:
The first piece of information is supported by the passage: "SPEW contended, and WIDC concurred, that controllable conditions in such factories were responsible for the development of lead poisoning."
From this, we know that WIDC believed that lead poisoning was caused by controllable factors. This suggests that WIDC would think that lead poisoning can be avoided by changing these conditions.
Where (C) goes wrong is in the second piece: "WTUL believed that lead poisoning in such factories could not be avoided no matter how stringently safety regulations were enforced."
At the end of the passage, we learn that WTUL supports the legislation because safety regulations were not enforced, and there was no pressure from unions to make employers uphold these standards. So, as mentioned about in (A), WTUL's problem is with the enforcement of the regulations, not with the regulations themselves. We really don't know how the WTUL feels about how effective the regulations are -- perhaps if they were enforced, the WTUL would be happy with the level of protection provided to workers.
Because we don't know whether the WTUL thinks the regulations would be effective if they were enforced, (C) is out.
Quote:
WIDC opposed legislation that attempted to restrict women's labor in 1892. WTUL ceased opposing such legislation in the late 1880's.
(E) is the correct answer to question 1.
I hope that helps!
17 Jun 2021, 09:50
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi experts,
Please explain E option of this question, I am not able to eliminate E:
2. Which of the following, if true, would most clearly support the contention attributed to SPEW in highlighted text?
(A) Those white lead factories that most strongly enforced regulations concerning worker safety and hygiene had the lowest incidences of lead poisoning among employees.
(B) The incidence of lead poisoning was much higher among women who worked in white lead factories than among women who worked in other types of factories.
(C) There were many household sources of lead that could have contributed to the incidence of lead poisoning among women who also worked outside the home in the late nineteenth century.
(D) White lead factories were more stringent than were certain other types of factories in their enforcement of workplace safety regulations.
(E) Even brief exposure to the conditions typically found in white lead factories could cause lead poisoning among factory workers.
Please explain E option of this question, I am not able to eliminate E:
2. Which of the following, if true, would most clearly support the contention attributed to SPEW in highlighted text?
(A) Those white lead factories that most strongly enforced regulations concerning worker safety and hygiene had the lowest incidences of lead poisoning among employees.
(B) The incidence of lead poisoning was much higher among women who worked in white lead factories than among women who worked in other types of factories.
(C) There were many household sources of lead that could have contributed to the incidence of lead poisoning among women who also worked outside the home in the late nineteenth century.
(D) White lead factories were more stringent than were certain other types of factories in their enforcement of workplace safety regulations.
(E) Even brief exposure to the conditions typically found in white lead factories could cause lead poisoning among factory workers.
26 Jun 2021, 07:27
Kudos
Bookmarks
Question 2
Sajal12
Before diving into (E), first get some context from the passage to understand SPEW's contention.
First, we learn that workers in white lead factories are becoming ill. The government says, "Cool! Let's ban women from those workplaces!"
Then, the WTUL and the SPEW say "no way, that's some BS. You're just trying to limit women's work opportunities."
The SPEW does a bit of digging, and finds out that controllable conditions are causing factory workers to get sick. If the workers just practice good hygiene and the factories follow the rules, then there won't be so much illness.
So, does (E) support the SPEW's contention that workers' illnesses are caused by controllable conditions in the factory?
Quote:
(E) tells us that the "typical" conditions currently found in white lead factories are terrible and can cause illness.
However, it doesn't give us any insight into how controllable these conditions are -- is the issue caused by lax adherence to the rules and poor hygiene? Or is it just incredibly dangerous to work with white lead, and no amount of washing up/following the rules will help?
Because (E) doesn't tell us whether the conditions are controllable, it doesn't support the SPEW's contention.
Compare that to (A):
Quote:
(A) provides us with a nice piece of evidence that the SPEW is correct. Workers are less likely to get sick when work safety and hygiene rules are enforced. So, these controllable conditions ARE at the root of illnesses at white lead factories, and simply adhering to the rules will improve worker safety.
(A) is the correct answer to question 2.
I hope that helps!
