In 1938, at the government-convened National Health Conference

When tackling a long RC passage (or any RC passage, for that matter), a good first step is to determine the purpose of each individual paragraph. Don't worry about understanding every little detail, argument, or piece of evidence in the paragraph. As long as you understand why that paragraph is there, you can always go back to it if you need further detail.

So why is the first paragraph there? It tells us that, in 1938, one group (organized labor) supported universal healthcare, and we can infer that the American Medical Association (representing physicians interests) opposed universal healthcare at that time. Cool, moving on...

The second paragraph tells us that, at least from 1915 until 1935, the AALL supported national (i.e. "universal") healthcare, while the leaders of the AFL, which supposedly represented the interests of organized labor, actually opposed the universal healthcare that organized labor would come to support by 1938. Instead, the leaders of the AFL supported voluntarism (freedom from government intrusions). Again, don't worry about every little detail; just make sure you have an idea of why that paragraph is there, which is to let us know that a major labor organization (the AFL) had opposed universal healthcare from 1915 until 1935, even though, as described in paragraph one, organized labor had come to support universal healthcare.

The purpose of paragraph three is to show that the AFL leaders made some exceptions to the voluntarism they supported from 1915 through 1935 and that part of the reason AFL leaders opposed universal healthcare was out of concern for their own power.

The fourth paragraph tells us that, while some of the AFL leaders opposed universal healthcare from 1915 to 1935, many of the unionists represented by the AFL actually supported universal healthcare. Eventually, support for universal healthcare became so prevalent among unionists that, by 1935, the AFL had officially changed its position.

Now that we know the purpose of each paragraph, we can think about the purpose of the entire passage. We have a labor organization (the AFL) that started off supporting voluntarism and opposing universal healthcare and that gradually changed its position between 1915 and 1935. The main purpose of the passage seems to be to describe the evolution of the AFL's stance on universal healthcare; this purpose fits nicely with choice (B) in question #4:

As for question #3, let's start with the purpose of that paragraph, which was to show that the AFL leaders made some exceptions to the voluntarism they supported from 1915 through 1935 and that part of the reason AFL leaders opposed universal healthcare was out of concern for their own power. Because the highlighted sentence cites examples of exceptions made by the AFL leaders to the voluntarism they supported, choice (C) is the best answer:

By taking such passages one paragraph at a time, understanding the purpose of each paragraph, and then thinking about the purpose of the entire passage, you can engage with the passage and get something out of it even if you don't understand all of the details. Since those details will always be there on the screen, you can always go back to them if needed.

I hope this helps!
_________________

Question 1

First, let's consider choice B. From the first sentence of the second paragraph, we know that the leaders of the AFL held the voluntarist view until 1935, but what about most unionists? From the final paragraph, we know that many unionists "worked to enact compulsory health insurance in their state legislatures," something that goes against the voluntarist view held by leaders of the AFL... but when? The next sentence tells us that this activism came to prevail in the US labor movement in 1935, which implies that the activism of the unionists (which opposed the voluntarist view) was going on prior to 1935. This suggests that most unionists did NOT share the voluntarist view held by leaders of the AFL, and that, even though Samuel Gompers presumed to speak for all workers, he actually did not speak for most unionists. Choice B can be eliminated.

As for choice A, the second paragraph tells us that Gompers "had positioned the AFL as a leading opponent of the proposals for national health insurance that were advocated beginning in 1915 by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL)" This tells us that the AALL advocated FOR national health insurance, and this directly opposes the voluntarist view, which "represented national health insurance as a threat to workers’ privacy." Thus, the passage suggests that the voluntarist view was opposed by the AALL (choice A).
_________________

Passage breakdown

In the first paragraph, the author introduces two opposing views regarding healthcare in 1938.

• Organized labor activists wanted to guarantee universal healthcare in the US.
• Physicians opposed universal healthcare.

In the second paragraph (P2), the author discusses the position of labor leaders BEFORE 1935

• Leaders of the labor movement, such as the AFL's Gompers, did NOT previously support universal healthcare.
• Privacy concerns were, in part, at the heart of Gompers' position.
• Other labor organizations (the AALL) DID want universal healthcare at this time.

In the third paragraph, the author critiques Gompers' motivations

• He/she suggests that Gompers' resistance to reforms was, in part, due to in-fighting within the labor movement.

In the fourth paragraph, the author explains why the AFL ultimately reversed its position.

• The AFL "unequivocally" supported universal healthcare by 1935 because of limitations of the current healthcare system.

For more on the process of breaking down RC passages, check out this article or our live RC videos.

Explanations for individual questions

• Question 1
• Question 3
• Question 4

_________________

P1: In 1938, at the government-convened NHC. The American Medical Association argued for preserving physicians’ free-market prerogatives. Labor activists countered them.
P2: AFL president Samuel Gompers opposed the proposals for national health insurance. Gompers’ opposition to national health insurance was partly principled
P3: AFL’s voluntarism had accommodated certain exception but drew the line at national health insurance, however, partly out of concern for their own power.
P4: AFL unequivocally reversed its position on health legislation.

Got 1 and 3 wrong

1) The passage suggests which of the following about the voluntarist view held by leaders of the AFL regarding health care?
(A) It was opposed by the AALL.
(AFL president Samuel Gompers had positioned the AFL as a leading [b]opponent of the proposals for national health insurance that were advocated beginning in 1915 by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL).
I understand that AFL opposes AALL. but opposite is the option A.)[/b]
(B) It was shared by most unionists until 1935.(The labor activists’ position represented a departure from the voluntarist view held until 1935 by leaders of the American Federation of labor (AFL).)
(C) It antagonized the American Medical Association.(This is only mentioned in 1st para.wrong)
(D) It maintained that employer-sponsored health care was preferable to union-run health programs.(No such preference is mentioned)
(E) It was based on the premise that the government should protect child laborers but not adult workers.(adult workers is not mentioned)

Why A is right and B is wrong?

3) Which of the following best describes the function of the sentence in lines 42-45 (“Yet … child laborers”)?
(A) It elaborates a point about why the AFL advocated a voluntarist approach to health insurance.(No such explanation)
(B) It identifies issues on which the AFL took a view opposed to that of the AALL.(not opp but supportive as well)
(C) It introduces evidence that appears to be inconsistent with the voluntarist view held by AFL leaders.
(D) It suggests that a view described in the previous sentence is based on faulty evidence.
(E) It indicates why a contradiction described in the previous paragraph has been overlooked by historians.

could not understand C, D and E options clearly. can someone explain?

Need some explanation for Q1 of this passage.

Although not fully convinced with my choice (b), I found it the best, especially because of this phrase "Samuel Gompers, presuming to speak for all workers". However, I do not fully agree with choice (a), because the passage expressly states that Samuel was a leading opponent of AALL, while being silent on AALL's position. It may be completely neutral not knowing Samuel's position, even more so because Samuel could have opined his position only after AALL expressed it.

Pls elaborate.

Hi GMATNinja,

Could you please explain how to tackle this long passage? Could you please explain below questions?

3) Which of the following best describes the function of the sentence in lines 42-45 (“Yet … child laborers”)?
(A) It elaborates a point about why the AFL advocated a voluntarist approach to health insurance.
(B) It identifies issues on which the AFL took a view opposed to that of the AALL.
(C) It introduces evidence that appears to be inconsistent with the voluntarist view held by AFL leaders.
(D) It suggests that a view described in the previous sentence is based on faulty evidence.
(E) It indicates why a contradiction described in the previous paragraph has been overlooked by historians.

4) The primary purpose of this passage is to
(A) account for the labor organization's success in achieving a particular goal
(B) discuss how a labor organization came to reverse its position on a particular issue
(C) explain how disagreement over a particular issue eroded the power of a labor organization
(D) outline the arguments used by a labor organization`s leadership in a particular debate
(E) question the extend to which a labor organization changed its position on a particular issue
_________________

Hey oasis90!
Not sure if you still have the doubt, but i shall try explaining.


Since it is a purpose question, most of the wrong answer choices focus only on some part of the passage. They do not focus on the entire passage. So when you're stuck, such as in option D above, then try to find if it is referring only to some part of the passage or if it is referring to the entire passage.

So now with that in mind. Where does option D fit in? Which part of the passage is it relating to?
You can observe that it is only describing the purpose of the 2nd part mostly and maybe the 3rd part of the passage as well. Definitely not the passage as a whole!

Hope this helps!

P1 - organized labor ~ universal health care in US. A want it free. B want healthcare surety as it is fundamental right.
P2 - law before thi one shaken. steps taken for reform. some fears.
P3 - fears solved.
P4 - more trouble and AFL stand.

1) The passage suggests which of the following about the voluntarist view held by leaders of the AFL regarding health care?
Lines to read - had positioned the AFL as a leading opponent of the proposals for national health insurance that were advocated beginning in 1915 by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL),

(A) It was opposed by the AALL.

----------------------------------------------
2) According to the passage, Gompers' objection to national health insurance was based in part on his belief that
Last line from P2.
(D) it could result in certain workers unfairly losing their jobs

-----------------------------------------------
3) Which of the following best describes the function of the sentence in lines 42-45 (“Yet … child laborers”)?
Pre-think = Last line of p2 defines a problem AFL chief had. those doubts solved in P3.

(C) It introduces evidence that appears to be inconsistent with the voluntarist view held by AFL leaders.

---------------------------------------------------
4) The primary purpose of this passage is to

(B) discuss how a labor organization came to reverse its position on a particular issue

Hi GMATNinja

Is it that we are choosing A, because it is the best not the perfect one?
I still can not digest that given for example A opposed B, we are assuming correct answer to be "B also opposed A".
Yes, they had opposite views, but it is not explicitly given that AAL went to the extent of opposing it, the way it has been given for AFL.

Question 1

If question 1 asked us which answer choice was proven without a doubt by the information in the passage, then we might get in trouble by choosing (A). Luckily, it actually asks which answer choice is "suggested" by the passage -- so it's okay that the information in (A) is not stated explicitly.

The AALL argued for national healthcare. The AFL opposed this, arguing instead for a voluntarist program. The two viewpoints went head-to-head in the decades before 1935, until the AFL changed its mind and joined in the call for national healthcare. This is enough to suggest that the AALL wasn't too thrilled about the voluntarist program.

That's why (A) is the correct answer for question 1.

I hope that helps!
_________________

P1: 2 opp. Povs: Docs and labours: Universal Health Care Vs Free Market
P2: Explains another pov which labours departed from AFL: No govt. interventions of national health insurance
P3: Discusses exception from P2’s pov: why? -> Less power-> Threat to union-sponsored benefit to Gompers
P4: Talks about developments that led to AFL reversing its position

All this passage talks about is certain opposing povs and developments that reversed one of the povs



1) The passage suggests which of the following about the voluntarist view held by leaders of the AFL regarding health care?
Type: Detail
Focus of the question: Voluntarist View


(A) It was opposed by the AALL.
The passage says that Grompers positioned itself as the leading opposition of AALL’s proposals.

(B) It was shared by most unionists until 1935.
Trap: Stretch Choice
AFL was a leading affiliation of labor unions, but that doesn’t mean that their view was shared by most unions.

(C) It antagonized the American Medical Association.
Nowhere in the passage is it mentioned that the volunteer view antagonized the AMA.

(D) It maintained that employer-sponsored health care was preferable to union-run health programs.
Trap: Opposite
The last sentence of Paragraph 3 says “That this reform threatened union-sponsored benefit programs championed by Gompers made national health insurance even more objectionable.”

(E) It was based on the premise that the government should protect child laborers but not adult workers.
Paragraph 2 says “the voluntarist view stressed workers’ right to freedom from government intrusions into their lives and represented national health insurance as a threat to workers’ privacy”
Government intervention for child laborers was an accommodation to the view not a premise.

2) According to the passage, Gompers' objection to national health insurance was based in part on his belief that
Type: Detail
Focus of the question: Gompers’ objection to national health insurance

(A) union-sponsored health programs were less expensive than government-sponsored programs
Trap: Wrong Comparison
We have to be careful when one of the answer choice presents us with a comparison.
Nowhere in the passage is it mentioned that union-sponsored health programs were less expensive than government-sponsored programs.

(B) most unionists were covered by and satisfied with union-sponsored health programs
Trap: Near-by Choice
Paragraph 3 does say “Many unionists, recognizing that union-run health programs covered only a small fraction of union members and that unions represented only a fraction of the nation’s workforce, worked to enact compulsory health insurance in their state legislatures”
However, this fact isn’t part of Gromper’s reasoning for his objection.

(C) it would lead some employers to reduce company-sponsored benefits
Trap: Near-by choice
Paragraph 2 does say “Gompers’ opposition to national health insurance was partly principled, arising from the premise that governments under capitalism invariably served employers’, not workers’, interests.”
However, nowhere in the passage is it mentioned that national health insurance would lead some employers to reduce company-sponsored benefits.

(D) it could result in certain workers unfairly losing their jobs
Paragraph 2 says “Gompers feared the probing of government bureaucrats into workers’ lives, as well as the possibility that government-mandated health insurance, financed in part by employers, could permit companies to require employee medical examinations that might be used to discharge disabled workers.”
Discharge of disabled workers according to Gompers, certain workers unfairly losing their jobs

(E) the AFL should distance itself from the views of the American Medical Association
Trap: Speculation
Paragraph 2 does say “Gompers’ opposition to national health insurance was partly principled, arising from the premise that governments under capitalism invariably served employers’, not workers’, interests.”
And, AMA represented physician’s free-market prerogatives, which is part of capitalism.
However, the views of AMA were not the basis of Gompers’ objection.

3) Which of the following best describes the function of the sentence in lines 42-45 (“Yet … child laborers”)?
Type: Specific Purpose
Focus of the Question: (“Yet … child laborers”)

The sentence starts with a contrast marker “Yet” and is connected to the previous paragraph.
What were the exceptions to: No govt. intrusions
Who were the exceptions for: injured workers and child laborers

(A) It elaborates a point about why the AFL advocated a voluntarist approach to health insurance.
Trap: Opposite
The sentence begins with a contrast marker and talks about an exception from the voluntarist view. So, it is not elaborating on any previous point from the passage.

(B) It identifies issues on which the AFL took a view opposed to that of the AALL.
This sentence not identifying an issue rather it is providing an exception for something mentioned in the previous paragraph.

(C) It introduces evidence that appears to be inconsistent with the voluntarist view held by AFL leaders.
Because the sentence says “accommodated certain exceptions” and nowhere in the passage does it talk about the AFL leaders being open to exceptions. The exceptions that the AFL had supported government intervention on behalf of injured workers and child laborers are inconsistent with the voluntarist view held by their leaders.

(D) It suggests that a view described in the previous sentence is based on faulty evidence.
Let’s see one of the premises mentioned in the previous paragraph: “Gompers’ opposition to national health insurance was partly principled, arising from the premise that governments under capitalism invariably served employers’, not workers’, interests.”
We can see that the exception mentioned is not showing in any way that this premise, or any other premise for the voluntarist view mentioned in the passage is faulty.

(E) It indicates why a contradiction described in the previous paragraph has been overlooked by historians.
Nowhere in the passage is their any view of historians mentioned. It’s a trap answer to distract from finding the correct answer.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
_________________