For question 4 - A is wrong because it refers to the authors perspective or his opinion of how something contrasted with the abolitionists beliefs - the question asks about Glatthaars book - reference point at the beginning of P2.
QUESTION 7:
Quote:
7. Which of the following best describes the kind of error attributed to Glatthaar in lines 25-28 [In trying to demonstrate the magnitude of this attitudinal change, however, Glatthaar seems to exaggerate the prewar racism of the White men who became officers in Black regiments.]?
(A) Insisting on an unwarranted distinction between two groups of individuals in order to render an argument concerning them internally consistent
(B) Supporting an argument in favor of a given interpretation of a situation with evidence that is not particularly relevant to the situation
(C) Presenting a distorted view of the motives of certain individuals in order to provide grounds for a negative evaluation of their actions
(D) Describing the conditions prevailing before a given event in such a way that the contrast with those prevailing after the event appears more striking than it actually is
(E) Asserting that a given event is caused by another event merely because the other event occurred before the given event occurred
lichting wrote:
Can anyone please give me detail explaination of Q7?
I can locate the relevant information - the "exaggerate" part but still don't know the meaning of option D in Q7. Though I could choose it by eliminating the other options
First of all, great job using process of elimination! If you've found four wrong answers, then you've found the correct answer
Glatthaar suggests that the white officers had "powerful racial prejudices" before the war and that fighting alongside black soldiers during the war changed those prejudices (the black soldiers "fought their way into the respect of all the army"). In other words, Glatthaar suggests that the white officers were very racist before the war and much less racist after the war.
But the author suggests that Glatthaar is exaggerating this change. The author says that the pre-war racism of many white officers was not as "powerful" a Glatthaar suggests. Many of those white officers were abolitionists who spent years fighting AGAINST racial prejudice even before the war started. Those officers may have gained respect for the black units
as soldiers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the officers went from being racist to not being racist. They may not have been very racist before the war even started.
Quote:
(D) Describing the conditions prevailing before a given event in such a way that the contrast with those prevailing after the event appears more striking than it actually is
Thus, Glatthaar describes the conditions prevailing before the war (i.e. the prewar racism of white officers) in such a way that the contrast with their POST-war racism seems more striking (i.e. more noticeable) than it actually was.
QUESTION 1:
anish823 wrote:
How do we know that its referring to a scholarly study?
I assume you are referring to the first question...
Quote:
1. The passage as a whole can best be characterized as which of the following?
(A) An evaluation of a scholarly study
(B) A description of an attitudinal change
(C) A discussion of an analytical defect
(D) An analysis of the causes of a phenomenon
(E) An argument in favor of revising a view
There are many clues from which we can infer that this is a scholarly study. For example, in the first sentence, the author refers to Glatthaar's work as an "excellent
study of Black soldiers and their White officers in the Civil War." Later in the first paragraph the author says that, "Glatthaar’s title expresses his
thesis" (a "thesis" could surely be the topic of a scholarly study).
We are also told that Glatthaar's work "concentrates more intensely on Black-White relations in Black regiments than do any of its predecessors." So while the passage never explicitly refers to the work as a "scholarly study", it is clear that the work examines race relations in the Civil War era. This certainly sounds like a scholarly (or "academic") study.
More importantly, choice (A) is better than any of the other choices, which you should try to eliminate using POE.
QUESTION 4:
oasis90 wrote:
Hi
GMATNinja 4. The passage mentions which of the following as an important theme that receives special emphasis in Glatthaar's book?
(A) The attitudes of abolitionist officers in Black units
(B) The struggle of black units to get combat assignments
(C) The consequences of the poor medical care received by Black soldiers
(D) The motives of officers serving in Black units
(E) The discrimination that Black soldiers faced when trying for promotions
can you please explain why choice A is incorrect? I know why B is correct but I can't find enough grounds to eliminate A. After all, there is a whole parg dedicated to it.
Choice (A) is tempting, but take a second look at the last two sentences in paragraph #2. A White officer is quoted, but these sentences are discussing the attitudes of White
soldiers, not abolitionist officers. Then, to demonstrate this "attitudinal change..., Glatthaar seems to exaggerate the prewar racism of the White men who became officers in Black regiments."
Yes, Glatthaar
mentions the attitudes of abolitionist officers in Black units but only to make a broader point about the shift in attitudes. In doing so, Glatthaar "
misrepresents the attitudes of the many abolitionists who became officers in Black regiments." So the point of the 3rd paragraph is not that Glatthaar gives special emphasis to the attitudes of abolitionist officers. Instead, the point is that Glatthaar's description of their attitudes (i.e. 'virtually all of them held powerful racial prejudices') is misleading.
Although Glatthaar certainly mentions the attitudes of these officers, were are not told that Glatthaar gives special emphasis to those attitudes. We are specifically told that Glatthaar appropriately emphasizes "the campaign by Black soldiers and their officers to get the opportunity to fight", so (B) is a much better answer.
QUESTION 5:
Nived wrote:
Can someone explain question 5. It says that Black units' disease mortality rates were especially high because of the nature of these units' usual duty assignments.
According to the passage, Black units served in rear-echelon assignments and worked in labor battalions. So, what exactly was the issue with the nature of "rear-echelon assignments and labor battalions"? I had the impression that the working conditions and hygiene issues were there, but this was not really related to "nature of duty", but more related to the living conditions. Where did I get it wrong.
csaluja wrote:
Hi
GMATNinja,
I was wondering could you please explain why Q5 OA is C? From the passage I was able to infer that Black units' disease mortality rates were high based on the following sentence from the passage "Thus, while their combat death rate was only one-third that of White units, their mortality rate from disease, a major killer in this war, was twice as great". My question is how can we infer the bold part in the following sentence: "Black units' disease mortality rates were especially high
because of the nature of these units' usual duty assignments.. I was confused on this latter part and ended up picking the wrong option because I was not able to infer that their mortality rates were high because of the nature of their duty assignments. Could you please help in regards to this? Would greatly appreciate it!
The author tells us that most Black units were kept serving "in rear-echelon assignments and working in labor battalions.
Thus, while their combat death rate was only one-third that of White units, their mortality rate from disease, a major killer in this war, was twice as great."
The use of the word "Thus" allows us to infer that
because Black units were kept in rear-echelon assignments and NOT given as many opportunities to fight (i.e. in the front), their combat death rate was lower. Furthermore,
because Black units were kept in rear-echelon assignments and working in labor battalions, their mortality rate from disease was twice as great.
Even though we don't know what specifically caused the higher disease rates in those jobs, we can infer that
something about working in rear-echelon assignments and in labor battalions increased mortality rates from disease. In other words, we can infer that being assigned to these duties increased your chances of catching fatal diseases.
We don't know
why that is true, but we can infer that
something about those duties (i.e. something
inherent to those duties... the
nature of those duties) made units assigned to those duties more likely to contract fatal diseases. Thus, the passage
suggests (though it does not
prove) that the disease mortality rates of Black units during the Civil War were especially high because of the
nature of these units' usual duty assignments.
Choice (C) is the best answer.
I hope that helps!