Acting on the recommendation of a British government committee investi

I was stuck on the same question and after re-reading the answer choices I concur that B is correct.

The passage mainly deals with the stance that each group, namely SPEW, WIDC and WTUL, has taken regarding the proposed legislation. However, even though all three groups contend that the unsafe conditions in the factories cause White lead poisoning, as to why each of these groups oppose the proposal varies. For example, WIDC is opposing the aforementioned proposal because it aims to restrict employment for women, SPEW is opposing it from their stance that the factories cause the lead poisoning and finally, WTUL's approach is that unions aren't strong enough at the Lead factories in order to pressure the factories from maintaining safe standards. Therefore, all three organizations approach the same problem but from different angles.

Hope this made sense...

84. The passage suggests that WIDC differed from WTUL in which of the following ways?

(A) WIDC believed that regulations were inadequate. False.
(B) WIDC is concerned about pressuring factories to improve regulations not unions. False.
(C) WTUL believed in improving conditions which is opposite the passage. False.
(D) This is just about white lead factories. False.
(E) Correct.

85. Which of the following, if true, would most clearly support the contention attributed to SPEW in lines 17-20(bold)?

SPEW believed in improving work conditions through regulations.

(A) Correct.
(B) We need something's about having or not having regulations.
(C) outside of scope.
(D) if the factories were already more stringent, this tends to weaken the claim.
(E) This shows the need for regulations but not support regulations could decrease illness incidents.

86. The passage is primarily concerned with

(A) motives were not tackled....
(B) the passage simply described reasoning . correct.
(C) process of enactment not tackled....
(D) their view were discussed but not tactics....
(E) arguments were mentioned but not evaluated

Done within 7:10, all correct (´ε｀ )♡
It is my first time posting explanation. Hope this explanation helps.

84. The passage suggests that WIDC differed from WTUL in which of the following ways?

(A) WIDC believed that the existing safety regulations were adequate to protect women's health, whereas WTUL believed that such regulations needed to be strengthened.- Not mentioned.
(B) WI DC believed that unions could not succeed in pressuring employers to comply with such regulations, whereas WTUL believed that unions could succeed in doing so.-Not mentioned.
(C) WIDC believed that lead poisoning in white lead factories could be avoided by controlling conditions there, whereas WTUL believed that lead poisoning in such factories could not be avoided no matter how stringently safety regulations were enforced. SPEW believed that lead poisoning in white lead factories could be avoided.
(D) At the time that the legislation concerning white lead factories was proposed, WIDC was primarily concerned with addressing health conditions in white lead factories, whereas WTUL was concerned with improving working conditions in all types of factories. -Not mentioned about improving working conditions.
(E) Correct At the time that WIDC was opposing legislative attempts to restrict women's labor, WTUL had already ceased to do so.

If we look into the passage again, it says that: " which attempted to challenge it by investigating the causes of illness in white lead factories. SPEW contended, and WIDC concurred, that controllable conditions in such factories were responsible for the development of lead poisoning. However, the Women's Trade Union League (WTUL), which had ceased in the late 1880s to oppose restrictions on women's labor, supported the eventually enacted proposal, in part because safety regulations were generally not being enforced in white lead factories, where there were no unions (and little prospect of any) to pressure employers to comply with safety regulations. - Means WIDC was still taking an action opposing legislative attempts to restrict women's labor while WTUL stopped/ceased to do so.

85. Which of the following, if true, would most clearly support the contention attributed to SPEW in lines 17-20(bold)?

(A) Correct. Those white lead factories that most strongly enforced regulations concerning worker safety and hygiene had the lowest incidences of lead poisoning among employees.
Passage: "SPEW provided convincing evidence that lead poisoning could be avoided if workers were careful and clean and if already extant workplace safety regulations were stringently enforced."- They provided evidence to contend against legislation attempt.
(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.

86. The passage is primarily concerned with

(A) presenting various groups' views of the motives of those proposing certain legislation
(B) Correct. contrasting the reasoning of various groups concerning their positions on certain proposed legislation
(C) tracing the process whereby certain proposed legislation was eventually enacted
(D) assessing the success of tactics adopted by various groups with respect to certain proposed legislation
(E) evaluating the arguments of various groups concerning certain proposed legislation

Hi Gmatninja, Gmatninja2,
I have a query regarding understanding of words - contend and concur in this passage.
Contend means to argue and concur means to be in harmony with.
My query is regarding part in bold, if SPEW opposes initial proposal of home secretary that women should be stopped from working in lead factories due to high chance of illness,
How can concur we place another contrasting word concur so adjacent to WIDC which in fact also opposes home secretary's proposal?

In this context, "concur" means to "agree" and "content" means to "argue" or "assert" (as in, to assert something as a position in an argument).

For example, Mike contends that going to the gym is a waste of time, and Charles concurs. In other words, Mike argues that going to the gym is a waste of time, and Charles agrees with Mike (i.e. Charles would also contend that going to the gym is a waste of time).

Referring to the part in bold, SPEW argues that controllable conditions were responsible for the development of lead poisoning, and WIDC agrees with SPEW (i.e. WIDC would also contend that controllable conditions were responsible).

I hope that helps!

Regarding Q3 (Book #86), I was also stuck between B and D, but eventually chose B.
Here is my reasoning:
In E, when you say "evaluate," you present the positive and negative points of a certain topic.
However, the article did not present the positive and negative points of the arguments of each of the 3 groups.
Only WIDC's argument was evaluated (the article stated a negative point: it did not discount the white lead trade's potential health dangers), not the arguments of the 2 or more groups.
Thus, the correct answer is B.

Hi GMATNinja,

Why is B better than E for Q3. Can you please provide your explanation?

What's the meaning of contrast here?

Passage: White Lead

Question: Main Idea

The Simple Story

Lead poisoning was once common among the mostly-female workforce of white lead factories. In 1895, the Home Secretary proposed banning women from working in these factories. The passage focuses on the ways in which three groups reacted to the proposal: WIDC and SPEW opposed the ban, while WTUL supported it. The passage also details the reasons for these groups’ reactions.

Sample Passage Map

Here is one way to map this passage. (Note: abbreviate as desired!)

P1:

WL factories → illness for women

Home Sec: ban women

WIDC: no, this limits women’s work opps

P2:

SPEW: also oppose Home Sec; illness can be controlled with regs

WTUL: supported Home Sec b/c of no safety regs

Step 1: Identify the Question

The phrasing primarily concerned with indicates that this is a Primary Purpose, or main idea, question.

Step 2: Find the Support

The support for a main idea question comes from your understanding of the passage as a whole; main idea answers will focus on the point of the entire passage, rather than any specific detail.

Step 3: Predict an Answer

The passage can be divided into four sections. The first section introduces background information: a proposal was made for certain reasons. Each of the next three sections describes the reaction of a particular group to this proposal. The passage does not argue in favor of or against any of these groups. Instead, it limits itself to describing their reactions and their reasoning, including how and why they differed. The right answer will probably refer to describing or contrasting the reactions of the three groups.

Step 4: Eliminate and Find a Match

(A) The three groups are described as being concerned with why the lead poisoning occurred, not with why the proposal about poisoning was made.

(B) CORRECT. The three groups supported or opposed the proposal for different reasons. For instance, WTUL supported the proposal due to concerns about enforcement. The majority of the passage is dedicated to explaining these reasons.

(C) At the end of the passage, it is briefly mentioned that the proposal was enacted. However, the passage does not specify how the groups influenced the legislative process, or how that process proceeded. It is possible that WTUL’s support helped the proposal become enacted, but the passage does not specifically state this.

(D) Since the proposal was enacted, WIDC’s and SPEW’s opposition to the proposal was presumably less successful than WTUL’s support. However, the passage does not state this and does not specifically describe any of the groups as successful or unsuccessful. Also, the groups’ tactics are not described, only their positions and reasoning.

(E) The passage does not evaluate the arguments of the groups. Instead, it just describes these arguments, without judging their merits.

GMATNinja the passage doesnt deal with only contrasting the differences. It also deals with high lighting similarities " SPEW contended, and WIDC concurred, that controllable conditions in such factories were responsible for the development of lead poisoning". Isn't contrast a very strong word here?

It's true that the author doesn't only contrast the reasoning behind the arguments -- but the questions asks us to determine the author's "primary concern," not to account for each piece of the passage.

Overall, WHY did the author write the passage? His/her primary concern is to explain the reasoning behind the differing positions of various groups. Even though two of these groups (the SPEW and the WIDC) concur with one another, the passage's primary purpose is to explore the contrast between those groups' reasoning and that of another organization.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

in Q.3 Why option A is incorrect

Law's motive: Restrict women jobs.

Passage then mention viewpoint of 3 different organisation to 'why law SHOULD NOT RESTRICT WOMEN From participating in jobs.

With this understanding I marked option A.Whereas in B, nowhere i feel contrast has been made

(A) presenting various groups' views of the motives of those proposing certain legislation
(B) contrasting the reasoning of various groups concerning their positions on certain proposed legislation

Option (A) would mean this:

"Home Secretary proposed that would prohibit women from holding most jobs in white lead factories"

Group A - The home secretary is proposing this because he does not want women to be financially independent.
Group B - No, the home secretary is proposing this because he cares about the health of women who are often responsible for running the household
Group C - No, the home secretary is proposing this because he wants to put his own men in their place.

This would be various groups presenting motives of the one proposing this legislation.

This is not what the passage does. It gives the positions various groups hold and their reasons -
WIDC opposed the proposal, viewing it as yet another instance of limiting women's work opportunities
Also opposing the proposal was SPEW which provided convincing evidence that lead poisoning could be avoided if workers were careful and clean
...
Hence (B) is correct.

Main Point: some regulation (three parties’ opinions)
P1: lots of illness white lead factories, particularly for women, so legislation -> women no WLF; WIDC no denying health problems, but opposed for limiting women’s work opps; SPEW also oppose b/c controllable causes = lead poisoning; BUT…WTUL supported proposal
1. The passage suggests that WIDC differed from WTUL in which of the following ways?
“… (WIDC)…did not discount the white lead trade's potential health dangers, it opposed the proposal, viewing it as yet another instance of limiting women's work opportunities.” “(WTUL), which had ceased in the late 1880s to oppose restrictions on women's labor, supported the eventually enacted proposal, in part because safety regulations were generally not being enforced in white lead factories, where there were no unions (and little prospect of any) to pressure employers to comply with safety regulations.”

(A) WIDC believed that the existing safety regulations were adequate to protect women's health, whereas WTUL believed that such regulations needed to be strengthened.
All wrong, essentially: WIDC didn’t necessarily say the regulations were adequate. If anything (although definitely a stretch), WIDC said the regulations were not adequate because WIDC didn’t discount the potential health dangers and focused on the limitations of women’s work opps. Moreover, WTUL didn’t necessarily believe regulations for safety had to be strengthened. WTUL just flat out thought the regulation “were generally not being enforced” by these factories and “no unions to pressure employers to comply.” A is definitely out.

(B) WIDC believed that unions could not succeed in pressuring employers to comply with such regulations, whereas WTUL believed that unions could succeed in doing so.
Not supported at all. We don’t know what WDIC thought about unions and if they could success in anything, let alone in pressuring employer to comply with regulations. Moreover, WTUL likely did not believe unions could succeed (or there was no support/precedence to do so). WTUL says “there were no union to pressure…”

(C) WIDC believed that lead poisoning in white lead factories could be avoided by controlling conditions there, whereas WTUL believed that lead poisoning in such factories could not be avoided no matter how stringently safety regulations were enforced.
“SPEW contended, and WIDC concurred, that controllable conditions…were responsible for…lead poisoning.” This means the 1st portion is correct. If it’s “controllable,” then it [the lead poisoning] “could be avoided by controlling conditions.” But the 2nd part of the answer choice is incorrect. Just because the passage says “supported the eventually enacted proposal, in part because safety regulations were generally not being enforced…” this does not mean that lead poisoning can’t be avoided no matter how stringently safety regulations were enforced. We have no idea because it’s generally NOT being enforced. There’s a logical leap here. It’s also way too extreme.

(D) At the time that the legislation concerning white lead factories was proposed, WIDC was primarily concerned with addressing health conditions in white lead factories, whereas WTUL was concerned with improving working conditions in all types of factories.
1st part: No. WIDC was concerned with women’s work opps, they didn’t “discount” the health problems is they said about that area of focus. 2nd part: what…? Not “all types of factories.” “WTUL…supported the…proposal…because regulations were generally not being enforced IN WHITE LEAD FACTORIES.”

(E) At the time that WIDC was opposing legislative attempts to restrict women's labor, WTUL had already ceased to do so.
1st part: yes. “… (WIDC)…opposed the proposal, viewing it as yet another instance of limiting women's work opportunities.” 2nd part: “WTUL, which ceased in the late 1880s to oppose restrictions on women’s labor…”


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.
This is it. The opposite side, the factories with strongly enforce regulations, doesn’t really have incidence of lead poisoning. But the other side, the side mentioned within the passage, does have high levels of incidences of lead poisoning.

(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.
Out of scope – we don’t care about other types of factories in general. We’re wondering if the factories with this stuff were able to avoid with stringently enforced regulations.

(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.
Opposite trap (weakener) – this could show that it’s not the factories that was responsible for the development of lead poisoning. Perhaps, it was the many household sources of lead?

(D) White lead factories were more stringent than were certain other types of factories in their enforcement of workplace safety regulations.
Opposite trap (weakener), if anything – if they were the more stringent, then why did they have the lead poisoning. Perhaps, it was from something else? Household sources? Some neighboring factory that shoots over particles to people in the vicinity? Some other obscure reason?

(E) Even brief exposure to the conditions typically found in white lead factories could cause lead poisoning among factory workers.
Strengthen the wrong thing! This strengthens the PROPOSAL and the NOT the contention. If even brief exposure could cause lead poisoning then the proposal is right to not have women (or just people in general for that matter) in the factories. It wouldn’t support the contention that the conditions of the factories that are leading to the lead poisoning is controllable. TY bm2201

3. The passage is primarily concerned with
(A) presenting various groups' views of the motives of those proposing certain legislation
One word off trap – “motives” of those PROPOSING certain legislation is not discussed.

(B) contrasting the reasoning of various groups concerning their positions on certain proposed legislation
At first, “contrasting” seemed to strong. But this is it. The below within E has the explanation!

(C) tracing the process whereby certain proposed legislation was eventually enacted
We’re not tracing the process. We’re giving a few arguments put forth by different groups.

(D) assessing the success of tactics adopted by various groups with respect to certain proposed legislation
A few words off trap – “success of tactics” is not mentioned.

(E) evaluating the arguments of various groups concerning certain proposed legislation
One word off trap – “evaluating” implies you’re seeing both sides of the argument for a given argument and see how it stands. This passage does not do that. We see how each group has its own view of things. WIDC says stifling women’s work opps, so opposed; SPEW says there are controllable contradiction in factories, so opposed; WTUL says no enforcement of regs, so supported. They’re all slightly different. The author of the passage is contrasting these arguments by explaining what these differences are.

4. According to the passage, the WIDC believed that the proposed legislation resembled earlier legislation concerning women’s labor in that it
(A) caused divisiveness among women’s organizations
Not about divisiveness among women’s organization, it’s about “limiting women’s work opps”

(B) sought to protect women’s health
Not about women’s, it’s about “limiting women’s work opps”

(C) limited women’s occupational opportunities
Bingo! Almost verbatim - “limiting women’s work opps”

(D) failed to bolster workplace safety regulations
Not about safety, it’s about “limiting women’s work opps”

(E) failed to make distinctions among types of factory work
Not about types of factory work, it’s about “limiting women’s work opps”

OE
Q1. The passage suggests that WIDC differed from WTUL in which of the following ways?
A. WIDC believed that the existing safety regulations were adequate to protect women’s health, whereas WTUL believed that such regulations needed to be strengthened.
B. WIDC believed that unions could not succeed in pressuring employers to comply with such regulations, whereas WTUL believed that unions could succeed in doing so.
C. WIDC believed that lead poisoning in white lead factories could be avoided by controlling conditions there, whereas WTUL believed that lead poisoning in such factories could not be avoided no matter how stringently safety regulations were enforced.
D. At the time that the legislation concerning white lead factories was proposed, WIDC was primarily concerned with addressing health conditions in white lead factories, whereas WTUL was concerned with improving working conditions in all types of factories.
E. At the time that WIDC was opposing legislative attempts to restrict women’s labor, WTUL had already ceased to do so.
Inference
To answer this question you need to understand the differences between WIDC and WTUL as they are described in the passage. The only information about WTUL in the passage is that it had stopped opposing restrictions on women’s labor in the late 1880s, and that, because existing safety regulations were not being enforced, it supported the proposal to prohibit women from working in white lead factories. WIDC, on the other hand, was formed in 1892 specifically to oppose restrictions on women’s labor, and it opposed the proposal.
A. According to the passage, WIDC did believe that existing safety regulations, if enforced, could prevent lead poisoning. WTUL may or may not have believed that the safety regulations needed to be strengthened; all the passage states is that WTUL did not believe that the safety regulations were likely to be enforced.
B. The passage states that WTUL believed that because there were no unions to pressure employers, the employers would not comply with safety regulations. The passage does not present any informationon which to base a conclusion about WIDC’s beliefs regarding union pressure on employers.
C. Based on information in the passage, both WIDC and SPEW believed that enforcing safety regulations could protect women against lead poisoning. WIDC supported SPEW’s position on the matter. WTUL believed that safety regulations were unlikely to be enforced because of the lack of unions.
D. The passage states that WIDC viewed the proposal to restrict women’s employment in white lead factories as an instance of legislation designed to limit women’s work opportunities—precisely thelegislation that WIDC was formed to oppose. Thus, WIDC was not primarily concerned with the factories’ health conditions.
E. Correct. WIDC began opposing legislative attempts to restrict women’s labor in 1892 and continued to do so through at least 1895, when the Home Secretary proposed prohibiting women from working in white lead factories. WTUL stopped opposing restrictions on women’s labor in the late 1880s, before WIDC was even founded. Thus, the passage suggests that WTUL had stopped opposing restrictions on women’s labor well before WIDC worked to oppose such legislation.
The correct answer is E.

Q3. Which of the following, if true, would most clearly support the contention attributed to SPEW in lines 17– 20?
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.
Evaluation
This question requires the reader to find a statement that would provide additional support for the contention made in the following statement: SPEW contended, and WIDC concurred, that controllable conditions in such factories were responsible for the development of lead poisoning. Information suggesting that when conditions were controlled, lead poisoning was less likely to develop would provide support for SPEW’s contention.
A. Correct. If incidences of lead poisoning were low in those factories that enforced hygiene and safety regulations, that would suggest that lead poisoning was not an inevitable result of working in a white lead factory—but rather that lead poisoning was the result of poor hygiene and safety practices.
B. It would not be particularly surprising for the incidence of lead poisoning to be higher among women working in white lead factories than among women working in other kinds of factories—but such a finding would say nothing about whether controllable conditions had any effect on the development of lead poisoning.
C. The existence of household sources of lead that might contribute to lead poisoning would weaken, not support, SPEW’s contention that controllable factory conditions were responsible for the development of lead poisoning.
D. If white lead factories enforced workplace safety regulations more stringently than did some other types of factories, it might be the case that SPEW’s contention was incorrect: that even controlled conditions could not prevent a high incidence of lead poisoning.
E. If the conditions typically found in white lead factories were particularly bad with regard to safety and hygiene, it could conceivably be the case that SPEW’s contention was true—that is, that the conditions that caused lead poisoning were controllable. But it might also be the case that an uncontrollable aspect of those conditions caused lead poisoning. Thus, this neither supports nor undermines SPEW’s contention clearly.
The correct answer is A.

Q3. The passage is primarily concerned with
A. presenting various groups’ views of the motives of those proposing certain legislation
B. contrasting the reasoning of various groups concerning their positions on certain proposed legislation
C. tracing the process whereby certain proposed legislation was eventually enacted
D. assessing the success of tactics adopted by various groups with respect to certain proposed legislation
E. evaluating the arguments of various groups concerning certain proposed legislation
Main idea
Answering this question depends on identifying the overall point of the passage. The passage is mainly concerned with explaining the reasons behind the positions taken by WIDC and SPEW, which opposed the proposal to enact legislation prohibiting women from holding most white lead factory jobs, and the reasoning of WTUL, which supported the proposal.
A. The passage explains how WIDC viewed the proposal, but it does not indicate what any of the groups believed about the motivations of the Home Secretary, who made the proposal.
B. Correct. The passage contrasts the reasoning of the WIDC and SPEW, both of which believed that enforcing safety regulations would make the proposed legislation unnecessary, with the reasoning of WTUL, which thought that safety regulations were unlikely to be enforced and thus supported the proposal.
C. The passage simply states that the proposal was eventually enacted; it does not trace the process by which this occurred.
D. The passage implies that WIDC and SPEW were unsuccessful in their opposition to the proposed legislation, but it identifies only one tactic used in opposition to it: SPEW’s attempt to challenge it by investigating the causes of lead poisoning.
E. The passage does not evaluate the groups’ arguments concerning the proposed legislation; rather, it presents those arguments without comment on their quality or value.
The correct answer is B.

Hi GMATNinja,

Can you please explain what exactly option A means in this question?
I am not able to understand "various groups' views of the motives" in option A

It is surprising to find out that not many were confused on Q1.



I was confused among A vs C over E.

Although the Women's Industrial Defense Committee (WIDC), formed in 1892 in response to earlier legislative attempts to restrict women's labor, did not discount the white lead trade's potential health dangers, it opposed the proposal,

didn't discount means = didn't consider?
so is this reason to say A and C wrong because in options it is mentioned WIDC believed. So we don't know what they actually believed?
Can I say 2nd part in A and C are right about WTUL?

Please confirm VeritasKarishma GMATNinja is my understanding correct?

Question 3

(A) is a bit convoluted!

Start at the end of the answer choice: "...the motives of those proposing certain legislation."

"Those proposing certain legislation" are the people mentioned at the beginning of the passage who wanted to prevent women from working in white lead factories. So, the "motives" of these people are the reasons that they want to enact this rule. For instance, maybe they really did want to keep women safe. Or perhaps they actually hated the idea of women in the workforce, and their true motive was to limit jobs for women.

Here's the whole of (A): "presenting various groups' views of the motives of those proposing certain legislation." The "various groups" are WIDC, SPEW, and WTUL. In the passage, we certainly hear about these groups' views -- but does the passage discuss their views on the motives of the people enacting the new rules?

Nope. The passage tells us about how these groups viewed the new legislation itself (WIDC and SPEW opposed it, while WTUL supported it), but we never hear about how these groups view the motives of the people behind the legislation.

You can eliminate (A) for question 3.

I hope that helps!