GMAT Question of the Day: Daily via email | Daily via Instagram New to GMAT Club? Watch this Video

 It is currently 26 May 2020, 19:10

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# In 1905, the Supreme Court of the United States decided on the case Lo

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

GMAT Club team member
Status: GMAT Club Team Member
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 5902
GPA: 3.62
In 1905, the Supreme Court of the United States decided on the case Lo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2019, 07:44
Question 1
00:00

based on 95 sessions

63% (03:22) correct 37% (03:26) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

Question 2
00:00

based on 103 sessions

53% (01:54) correct 47% (02:02) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

Question 3
00:00

based on 86 sessions

45% (01:47) correct 55% (02:01) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

Question 4
00:00

based on 83 sessions

28% (02:05) correct 72% (01:57) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

Question 5
00:00

based on 65 sessions

43% (01:50) correct 57% (01:44) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

Question 6
00:00

based on 67 sessions

24% (00:57) correct 76% (00:56) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

Question 7
00:00

based on 52 sessions

21% (01:01) correct 79% (01:23) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

New Project RC Butler 2019 - Practice 2 RC Passages Everyday
Passage # 307, Date : 03-Sep-2019
This post is a part of New Project RC Butler 2019. Click here for Details

In 1905, the Supreme Court of the United States decided on the case Lochner v. New York, and in doing so overturned the Bakeshop Act, which limited the number of hours that a baker could work per day to ten. The Court ruled that the Act removed a person's right to enter freely into contracts, which it construed as provided for by the 14th Amendment. The Court had previously determined through multiple rulings that the Due Process Clause, found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, was not merely a procedural guarantee, but also a substantive limitation on the type of control the government may exercise over individuals. Lochner set a precedent against the establishment federal and state laws regulating working hours and wages. For example, in Adkins v. Children's Hospital, in 1923, the Court ruled that federal minimum wage legislation for women was an unconstitutional infringement of liberty of contract, as protected by due process.

Some subsequent development of human rights evolved on the basis of Lochner; for example, Adkins was a significant point in the women's rights movement in the U.S., as the legislature and justice department for decades debated whether to establish absolute equality of women or provide only special protections and regulations for them. Nevertheless, the Court overturned Adkins and undermined Lochner in deciding West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, in 1937. That ruling repudiated the idea that freedom of contract should be unrestricted and echoed after the fact the dissenting opinion of Justice Holmes in Adkins that there were plenty of constraints on contract, such as against usury. At the time of West Coast Hotel, whose outcome hinged on an unexpected shift in the habits of Associate Justice Roberts, the dissenting Justice Sutherland was critical of the prospect that interpretation of the Constitution had been influenced by strictly contemporary events--ostensibly, the pressures placed upon workers by the circumstances of the ongoing Great Depression. Time has evidently judged this criticism to have been incorrect, since, while Lochner influenced a ruling whose imprint still remains, individuals' freedom of contract is not deemed limited by reasonable laws to protect workers' health and safety.

According to the passage, which of the following was true of the ruling on the case Lochner v. New York?

A. It was influenced by strictly contemporary events.
B. It limited the number of hours that a baker could work per day to ten.
C. It was later overturned, prompting the West Coast Hotel case.
D. It reasserted an individual's right to enter freely into contracts.
E. It was determined over the course of multiple rulings.

2. The passage suggests that, if the rulings expressed in the highlighted lines were used as the basis for judging relevant labor issues, which of the following would be true?

A. Contracts other than employer-employee relationships that protected workers' health could not be broken.
B. The right of women to work in a safe environment would take precedence over the rights of other workers.
C. A law to protect workers' safety would be considered an infringement upon individuals' freedom of contract.
D. Contracts established before 1905 would be judged to have infringed upon workers' individual rights.
E. Contracts between employers and workers would be required to establish the maximum number of hours of labor per worker each week.

3. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between the ruling on West Coast Hotel v. Parrish and prior rulings discussed in the passage?

A. The ruling on West Coast overturned Lochner, reinstating the legislation overturned by Lochner.
B. The ruling on West Coast overturned a ruling that had depended in part on Lochner, leaving the result of Lochner intact but weakened.
C. The ruling on West Coast overturned a prior interpretation of due process and asserted a new interpretation of women's rights.
D. The ruling on West Coast overturned aspects of Lochner and Adkins, further constricting freedom of contract.
E. The ruling on West Coast overturned Lochner and undermined Adkins, repudiating some ideas of freedom of contract.

4. The "unexpected shift" mentioned in the highlighted text of the passage is best described as

A. a reversal in one judge's opinion on the protection of workers that led to a similar reversal in the ruling of the Court
B. a shift in principle that led the Court to base its decision more than previously on strictly contemporary events affecting workers
C. a change of position in which Justice Roberts, who had sided with Justice Holmes in the ruling on Adkins, sided with Justice Sutherland in the ruling on West Coast Hotel
D. a shift in Justice Holmes' voting behavior that reflected a development in the Court's view on women's rights
E. the beginning of an era of more diverse views among the justices of the Court, who had previously been unified on matters of worker protection

5. The author cites the existence of constraints on contract against usury in order to do which of the following?

A. Clarify the view that the reasoning behind the ruling in Adkins was inconsistent with other legal precedent
B. Suggest that the protection of workers defended by the Court would extend behind the number of hours worked to other areas
C. Argue that women workers deserved protections that might not necessarily extend to men workers
D. Support the argument that prior considerations about due process should be reinstated in the Court's ruling on workers' protection
E. Expand the scope of human rights considered by the Court in the context of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish

6. The primary purpose of the passage is to

A. trace the development of laws defending the right of due process for male and female workers
B. explain some the Court's rulings on worker's rights that have influenced the present-day situation
C. question the legal criteria used to make judgments on the subject of the protection of worker's rights
D. identify the earliest date at which the Court ruled to establish protection of worker's rights
E. point out legal distinctions between different types of protection of workers

7. The passage suggests that, as of the time of the ruling on West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, pressures placed upon workers that are not strictly related to working hours are

A. guaranteed by the outcome of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish
B. unrestricted in employment contracts into which both parties enter freely
C. worth disregarding insofar as they appear to reflect strictly contemporary events
D. worth inhibiting to the extent they are as severe or more severe than those ruled upon in Lochner, Adkins, and West Coast Hotel
E. potentially subject to constraint through legislation

Source: GMAT Free (10)
Difficulty Level: 750

_________________
Intern
Joined: 27 Sep 2018
Posts: 37
Re: In 1905, the Supreme Court of the United States decided on the case Lo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2019, 19:12
SajjadAhmad What is the level of the Passage ? Found it to be difficult ?

Pls provide summary and solution to the Questions
Intern
Joined: 28 Mar 2019
Posts: 3
Re: In 1905, the Supreme Court of the United States decided on the case Lo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Sep 2019, 20:25
Please provide solutions for the passage.

Posted from my mobile device
GMAT Club team member
Status: GMAT Club Team Member
Affiliations: GMAT Club
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 5902
GPA: 3.62
Re: In 1905, the Supreme Court of the United States decided on the case Lo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Sep 2019, 01:38
1
Hello Alpha14 and Ishita95

This is a hard 700-750 level question, below is the OE of all questions

Official Explanation

1. According to the passage, which of the following was true of the ruling on the case Lochner v. New York?

Difficulty Level: 700

Explanation

This question could potentially be time-consuming, because it asks about Lochner, a case that is discussed throughout the passage. Let's start with the key point about Lochner, which is that it removed limits on working hours for bakers. Answer choice (B) is the opposite of that point, so (B) is out.

Answer choice (A) refers to a specific comment late in the passage; we can confirm that the comment referred to West Coast, not Lochner (and it's also not true, according to the passage). So (A) is out.

(C) is out because it was later "undermined," not "overturned," and it was undermined by West Coast, not prompting West Coast. Choice (E) is nonsensical, since Lochner was a single ruling. (D) is correct, as we can confirm in the first paragraph. The right to enter into contracts was the thing the Court was trying to defend in ruling on Lochner. The correct answer is (D).

On this question, if you got to a point at which you were about 75% or 80% certain that (D) was the correct answer, but you were not 100% sure about the relationship between Lochner and the freedom of contract point, I would counsel you to take a moment with the passage to understand the freedom of contract point. The first question in the passage is often an opportunity to clear up something you were confused about. Also, once we determine that (D) is the correct answer, we get a useful tidbit about the passage: "Locher reasserted an individual's right to enter freely into contracts." We still have at least two questions to go, so a minimal effort to improve our grasp is worth it. We might even get another question in which this point is directly tested.

Once again, the correct answer is (D).

2. The passage suggests that, if the rulings expressed in the highlighted lines were used as the basis for judging relevant labor issues, which of the following would be true?

Difficulty Level: 750

Explanation

This question points us to the rationale for Lochner. As it happens, we just decided and learned from the last question that "Locher reasserted an individual's right to enter freely into contracts." And, as it turns out, this question asks us to focus on the lines which include that same portion of the passage. This is a completely realistic example of how you can "sharpen as you go" in Reading Comprehension. Lochner is all about defending the right to enter freely into contracts. Let's take that nugget of wisdom and see how far it gets us with the answer choices.

Choice (B) is irrelevant and somewhat opposite to the point. Choice (D) and Choice (A) are both out of the scope of the question, since we can't go so far to conclude about other types of contracts, or all previous contracts. That leaves us with (C) and (E), both of which involve contracts. Both step somewhat beyond what is obvious in lines 5-19.

Choice (C) mentions safety, which doesn't appear in the passage explicitly until the very end of the passage. That sentence says that the basis of Lochner and protecting health and safety are different. This implies that protecting health and safety was contrary to Lochner. Therefore, answer (C) would appear to be correct. We do know, after all, that Lochner was aggressive in protecting individuals' right to contract. Given that, does (E) have an objective error? Choice (E) is, in fact, contrary to the ruling of Lochner, as it has been described to us, because requiring a maximum number hours of work per week could be seen as setting limits on what workers can agree to.

3. Which of the following most accurately summarizes the relationship between the ruling on West Coast Hotel v. Parrish and prior rulings discussed in the passage?

Difficulty Level: 700

Explanation

This question asks us about a key detail in how the rulings are related to each other, and one which we noted on reading the passage. West Cost overturned Adkins, and "undermined" Lochner. Since it undermined Lochner, it didn't overturn the ruling, but it might have removed some of the significance of the ruling or possibly established a basis on which Lochner was later overturned. Since it didn't overturn Lochner, choices (A), (D), and (E) are out. We are left with (B) and (C). (B) appears to be accurate, because "a ruling that had depended in part on Lochner" is a valid description of Adkins, and "intact but weakened" is a valid way to paraphrase "undermined." Since (B) appears to be accurate, we can focus on finding an objective error in (C). Indeed, to pick on what appears to be the more vulnerable part of (C), we have no basis to think that West Coast asserted a new interpretation of women's rights. Advancing women's rights was attributed to Adkins, and West Coast appears to have ruled solely on the basis of a new interpretation of freedom of contract, as the description starting in line 28 indicates.

4. The "unexpected shift" mentioned in the highlighted text of the passage is best described as

Difficulty Level: 750

Explanation

This question asks about a little phrase which may have slipped our attention, but which includes hints of commentary from the author, who gives us a glimpse into what he considers unexpected and expected--and possibly significant. Checking the line, we see that the "unexpected shift" was in Associate Justice Roberts. His shift was critical to the outcome of West Coast Hotel. We also see that there was a differing view and a bit of an accusation from Justice Sutherland, which may or may not be important in this question. Let's go on the answer choices.

Choice (A) sounds accurate to the summary we just gave ourselves. Choice (B) is out because the passage decides that the ruling was not based on strictly contemporary events.

Choice (C) aligns Roberts with Sutherland, so it's inaccurate. Choice (D) is unsupported and most likely implausible, as he appeared to influence the court more than the other way around, and for different reasons than women's rights.

Choice (E) makes a strong claim that is neither stated nor implied by the passage, which does not make general and certainly not future-oriented statements about the degree of agreement within the Court.

5. The author cites the existence of constraints on contract against usury in order to do which of the following?

Difficulty Level: 750

Explanation

This question asks about a detail mentioned in lines of the passage, the only place where usury is mentioned. We can read right off the sentence that usury is mentioned as an example of "constraint on contract." These constraints were not bad things, but rather were examples, in the new ruling of West Coast, that the law had restricted the freedom of contract in appropriate ways all along. Let's turn to the answer choices. (A) is consistent with our understanding. Usury is the "legal precedent" it's talking about, and the result of West Coast was to overturn Adkins.

Choice (B) inaccurately describes the context of West Coast, because prior to that ruling the number of hours was not protected by the Court, according to what we've been told. So (B) is out.

Choice (C) is out; this is not about gender. Choice (D) is inaccurate, because due process, so far as we know, was never dropped by the Court and thus didn't need to be reinstated; we don't hear anything about due process after the first paragraph.

Choice (E) goes too far in discussing the "scope of human rights," because this concept hasn't been addressed or defined in the passage to any extent.

6. The primary purpose of the passage is to

Difficulty Level: 750

Explanation

We should summarize before looking at the answer choices, even if our summary is inelegant. The purpose of this passage is to describe a series of court rulings that involve worker's rights and the protection of workers. There were some aspects that were overturned with time, and some influences that outlived the specific rulings. Let's look for something like that in the answer choices. Choice (A) sounds right in "trace the development," but off target in "due process" and in the gender focus, which are not the primary focus.

Choice (B) is slightly suspect in that it mentions the present-day situation, which is not described in the passage, but it's correct in focusing on worker's rights, and there is some discussion of the legacy of these rulings, so (B) may be correct. (C) is out, because the passage doesn't "question" anything; we don't have that degree of opinion. (D) is out, because we haven't learned a precise date of worker's rights; it was a gradual process. Choice (E) is out, since the passages talk almost exclusively about one type of protection, that against excessive working hours.

7. The passage suggests that, as of the time of the ruling on West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, pressures placed upon workers that are not strictly related to working hours are

Difficulty Level: 750

Explanation

This question asks us for an inference. The correct answer could hit on a point that is central to the message of the passage, or it could appear to come from nowhere. We can evaluate the answer choices based on the main idea. Namely, the point of West Coast was that the Court decided that it could restrict working hours, since it had all along been reasonably restricting workers' contracts for their protection. (A), (B), and (C) are all contrary to that basic point.

(D) is plausible, but unsupported. Choice (E) must be correct, because if it's not, it will generate an inconsistency with the passage. The point of Justice Roberts was that constraints such as usury had existed prior West Coast, and he was referring to these constraints as evidence, not attacking them. Therefore, pressures such as usury were indeed "subject to constraint through legislation."

Hope it helps

Alpha14 wrote:
SajjadAhmad What is the level of the Passage ? Found it to be difficult ?

Pls provide summary and solution to the Questions

Ishita95 wrote:
Please provide solutions for the passage.

Posted from my mobile device

_________________
Manager
Joined: 27 Feb 2019
Posts: 87
In 1905, the Supreme Court of the United States decided on the case Lo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Apr 2020, 12:33
Quote:
6. The primary purpose of the passage is to
Difficulty Level: 750
Explanation

We should summarize before looking at the answer choices, even if our summary is inelegant. The purpose of this passage is to describe a series of court rulings that involve worker's rights and the protection of workers. There were some aspects that were overturned with time, and some influences that outlived the specific rulings. Let's look for something like that in the answer choices. Choice (A) sounds right in "trace the development," but off target in "due process" and in the gender focus, which are not the primary focus.

Choice (B) is slightly suspect in that it mentions the present-day situation, which is not described in the passage, but it's correct in focusing on worker's rights, and there is some discussion of the legacy of these rulings, so (B) may be correct. (C) is out, because the passage doesn't "question" anything; we don't have that degree of opinion. (D) is out, because we haven't learned a precise date of worker's rights; it was a gradual process. Choice (E) is out, since the passages talk almost exclusively about one type of protection, that against excessive working hours.

The explaination does not seem to justify the correct answer. The OA must be B imo.
Intern
Joined: 09 Jan 2020
Posts: 4
Re: In 1905, the Supreme Court of the United States decided on the case Lo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Apr 2020, 05:55
GMATNinja
Kindly provide easy to understand explanations for Q4 to Q7 and also summary of the passage in a lucid manner.
Re: In 1905, the Supreme Court of the United States decided on the case Lo   [#permalink] 16 Apr 2020, 05:55