Main Point: some regulation (three partiesā 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 womenās work opps; SPEW also oppose b/c controllable causes = lead poisoning; BUTā¦WTUL supported proposal
1. The passage suggests that WIDC differed from WTUL in which of the following ways?
āā¦ (WIDC)ā¦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.ā ā(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.ā
(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 didnāt necessarily say the regulations were adequate. If anything (although definitely a stretch), WIDC said the regulations were not adequate because WIDC didnāt discount the potential health dangers and focused on the limitations of womenās work opps. Moreover, WTUL didnāt necessarily believe regulations for safety had to be strengthened. WTUL just flat out thought the regulation āwere generally not being enforcedā by these factories and āno unions to pressure employers to comply.ā 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 donāt 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 āthere were no union to pressureā¦ā
(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.
āSPEW contended, and WIDC concurred, that controllable conditionsā¦were responsible forā¦lead poisoning.ā This means the 1st portion is correct. If itās ācontrollable,ā then it [the lead poisoning] ācould be avoided by controlling conditions.ā But the 2nd part of the answer choice is incorrect. Just because the passage says āsupported the eventually enacted proposal, in part because safety regulations were generally not being enforcedā¦ā this does not mean that lead poisoning canāt be avoided no matter how stringently safety regulations were enforced. We have no idea because itās generally NOT being enforced. Thereās a logical leap here. Itās 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 womenās work opps, they didnāt ādiscountā the health problems is they said about that area of focus. 2nd part: whatā¦? Not āall types of factories.ā āWTULā¦supported theā¦proposalā¦because regulations were generally not being enforced IN WHITE LEAD FACTORIES.ā
(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. āā¦ (WIDC)ā¦opposed the proposal, viewing it as yet another instance of limiting women's work opportunities.ā 2nd part: āWTUL, which ceased in the late 1880s to oppose restrictions on womenās laborā¦ā
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, doesnāt 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 ā we donāt care about other types of factories in general. Weāre 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) ā this could show that itās 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 ā 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 wouldnāt support the contention that the conditions of the factories that are leading to the lead poisoning is controllable. TY
bm22013. The passage is primarily concerned with
(A) presenting various groups' views of the motives of those proposing certain legislation
One word off trap ā āmotivesā of those PROPOSING certain legislation is not discussed.
(B) contrasting the reasoning of various groups concerning their positions on certain proposed legislation
At first, ācontrastingā 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
Weāre not tracing the process. Weāre 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 ā āsuccess of tacticsā is not mentioned.
(E) evaluating the arguments of various groups concerning certain proposed legislation
One word off trap ā āevaluatingā implies youāre 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 womenās work opps, so opposed; SPEW says there are controllable contradiction in factories, so opposed; WTUL says no enforcement of regs, so supported. Theyāre 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 womenās labor in that it
(A) caused divisiveness among womenās organizations
Not about divisiveness among womenās organization, itās about ālimiting womenās work oppsā
(B) sought to protect womenās health
Not about womenās, itās about ālimiting womenās work oppsā
(C) limited womenās occupational opportunities
Bingo! Almost verbatim - ālimiting womenās work oppsā
(D) failed to bolster workplace safety regulations
Not about safety, itās about ālimiting womenās work oppsā
(E) failed to make distinctions among types of factory work
Not about types of factory work, itās about ālimiting womenās work oppsā