Hi VeritasKarishma - while I do agree for question 3 - A/C/D and E are wrong - i also thought B was wrong

Isn't B wrong because the word "people" in option B will also have to reflect males who are the head of the household ?

We do not know what occupation the head of the household (male) is involved in per my understanding.

All we know per the 1840 census is w.r.t to head of the household is
- what is his name is
- whether he is present or absent in the household
- we know the occupation of OTHER household members (we dont know what the head of the household does)

Given we DONT know what the head of the household does (agriculture or enterprise) -- how can we count "PEOPLE" involved in nonfarming occupations as many heads of households could also be involved in nonfarming occupations

Given: the head of the household (presumed male or absent) was specified by name, whereas other household members were only indicated by the total number of persons counted in various categories, including occupational categories.

The occupation categories included total persons (including head of the household)
But name of only the head of the household was collected.
_________________

Hi VeritasKarishma - various categories, including occupational categories. is referring to OTHER household members and NOT to the head of the household per my analyis of the sentence in the image below.

Analogy:
the head of the household (presumed male or absent) was specified by name, whereas other household members were only indicated by their caste. = In a sentence like this -- the Caste categorization would refer only to OTHER household members and not to the head of the household.

Same logic here

various categories, including occupational categories only refers to OTHER household members.

Thoughts on how to re-concile ?

That is incorrect comprehension.

"Total number in each category" will include total number. Hence it has to include information about the head too.
The head of the household (presumed male or absent) was specified by name, whereas other household members were only indicated by the total number of persons counted in various categories (including occupational categories).

So info on a household could look like this:

Head: Jiminy Cricket
Total members farming: 4
Total members not working: 0
Total members above age 12 yrs: 3


So this means there are 4 people in the family, all of who are farmers (including the head of the household).
This also tells us that there is one child below 12 who is working at the farm.
So other household members are only indicated by the total number of persons counted in various categories. Their names are not given.

This is what the passage explains.
_________________

Hi Experts, Thanks for always helping me

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma EducationAisle ChrisLele mikemcgarry AjiteshArun egmat sayantanc2k RonPurewal DmitryFarber MagooshExpert avigutman EMPOWERgmatVerbal other experts

Please have a look at the below questions-

Que 1)Can someone please help me in understanding below Sentences

"simple enumeration by household mirrored a home-based agricultural economy and hierarchical social order: the head of the household (presumed male or absent) was specified by name, whereas other household members were only indicated by the total number of persons counted in various categories, including occupational categories. Like farms, most enterprises were family-run, so that the census measured economic activity as an attribute of the entire household, rather than of individuals"

My understanding is that - "The listing by household was same as the listing of HBA & HSO. And then it is describing how the listing was done.

What I didn't understood is what was the flaw in this counting census.? Is it that the count was not including each and every member of the family?


Que 2)About Which two groups is it talking about?
"Overlap between the two groups was not calculated until 1890"

Que 3) Don't know why but struggling with this passage and with question number 3.

Que 4) I didn't understood the each and everything of this passage but I knew the gist of the passage.
Because of which I got 4 answers correct.

So understanding each and every details in passage is not so important?

Vatsal7794 In the very first sentence of the passage, the author sets the scene for us:
occupational information about women that was provided by the United States census became more detailed and precise in response to social changes.
Does that context help you identify the flaw here? the head of the household (presumed male or absent) was specified by name, whereas other household members were only indicated by the total number of persons counted in various categories, including occupational categories.


the census superintendent reported 1.8 million women employed outside the home in "gainful and reputable occupations." In addition, he arbitrarily attributed to each family one woman "keeping house."
So the overlap is when the woman "keeping house" is also employed outside the home.


household members were only indicated by the total number of persons counted in various categories, including occupational categories.
Process of elimination is generally the way to go with inference questions. You can eliminate ADE based on just the first word: the 1840 census didn't differentiate between men and women. And the correct answer can be inferred thanks to the differentiation among occupational categories (farming is an occupational category).


Yes, we're better off not understanding any details in our initial read, but rather why those details are there - how they serve the author's purpose. Understanding the author's choice to include some detail does not require us to understand that detail.
Later, once we see what particular detail a question is asking about, we can go study that detail (and ignore all the others).
I demonstrated this in a YouTube Live event which you can view here, and I have another one coming up this Sunday:


_________________

Thanks avigutman

For the explanations. Will watch the videos suggested by you.

"In addition, he arbitrarily attributed to each family one woman "keeping house."" sounds like a critique to me...

Hi,

For Question 5, Although other options dont seem that sound, in option B, I feel like it encompasses too much than what passage says ie., from passage Women statisticians and advocates pressured because they wanted to get accurate data of Women, whereas option B is kinda generalized in saying that
here economic changes can be anything, passage gives info related to women but this option could mean anything, although this option is qualified by using word "certain" it still doesnt guarantee that its related to women

So, although our job is not to prove it(as question says "suggests"), should we just go ahead based on others being wrong and option is slightly more better? What do you guys think on this? carcass VeritasKarishma GMATNinja
_________________

It doesn't matter that the option provides the same data in more general terms. As long as it stays true, it is acceptable.

For example, say a passage tells us that the reporter believes that Jack was wronged.
Now a question could ask us this: "What does the passage suggest about the reporter?"
The correct option could be this: The reporter believes that a person was wronged.

If the reporter believes that Jack was wronged, he certainly belies that a person was wronged. Even if we haven't included all the details available, this level of detail is true nevertheless.

In case it were the other way around, then it would not work.
For example, say a passage tells us that the reporter believes that a person was wronged.
Now a question could ask us this: "What does the passage suggest about the reporter?"
An option could be this: The reporter believes that Jack was wronged.
This option would not be correct. It gives more details than the passage. We don't know whether this extra detail is true or not.

Similarly, we know what "certain economic changes" are but that doesn't make using this general term incorrect.
JaxHammer
_________________

Question 5

The question asks us what the passage suggests about "women's advocates and women statisticians."

In the second paragraph, we learn that "the rapid entry of women into the paid labor force and social issues arising from industrialization" caused these advocates/statisticians to press for better data.

So, the passage suggests that the advocates/statisticians "believed that previous census information was inadequate and did not reflect certain economic changes in the United States," as stated in (B).

There's no requirement for the language in an answer choice to reach a certain degree of specificity. If the passage suggests something, then that's the right answer even if the exact words don't match. And, as you've said, all of the other answer choices are definitely NOT suggested by the passage, so you're left with (B).

I hope that helps a bit!
_________________