jackspire Answer choice A is the opposite of what we want. The passage defines generational chauvinism as judging the past by present standards. A is a case of judging someone in the present based on what other people did in the past.
_________________

Sorry for the delay on these questions! Feel free to use the request verbal experts' reply button so that we're a little bit more likely to see your question.


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.



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.
_________________

Hi Logiquest,

Do you think you could explain why Q8 Option "clinging to standards of politeness..." can be discarded as an example of generational chauvinism?

Hello, I am not getting enough confidence in reading and answering RC and CR question. Whenever I think that I am going to take a quiz, I can't give my full potential to grasp the topics of RC passages, because something is disturbing my mind and I can't resist it. But, when I read any newspaper or journal article passage normally without any pressure of timing or fear of answering wrong, I can give my full potential and I feel very comfortable at that time. When it comes to taking quiz, this problem arises. Can anyone give a good solution for this problem? Is this problem common for GMAT takers??

Sure! Here's the question:


And here's the statement being quoted:


First, let's put this sentence in context. It ends the second paragraph. The author wrote that paragraph to challenge Glatthaar's statement that virtually all white officers in Black regiments had "powerful racial prejudices" prior to the war.

The author claims that this statement indulges in generational chauvinism, because many of these officers were abolitionists who supported civil equality for African Americans. Even if these officers' paternalism towards Africans Americans would be considered racist today, the author claims that according to the standards of their time, these soldiers did NOT hold powerful racial prejudices.

OK, so we're looking for an answer choice where someone in the past is judged negatively by present-day standards that did not exist in their time. Let's start our process of elimination:


This choice involves judging someone in the present, not in the past. Eliminate (A).


This choice follows the behavior of one person from childhood to adulthood. It doesn't involve judging anyone in the past. Eliminate (B).


This choice describes judging a person based on their gender. It doesn't involve judging anyone in the past. Eliminate (C).


This choice is closer to the author's definition, but still off the mark. Yes, this action negatively judges people in the past, but it's not doing so according to a standard from the present day. Instead, it's negatively judging people in the past for a behavior that also exists in the present day. That's why we eliminate (D).


This choice is a perfect match! Negatively judging a past politician by present-day standards for corruption is very similar to negatively judging past officers by present-day standards for racial prejudice. Both cases ignore what standards for judgment were used in the past era, so they both fit the author's definition of generational chauvinism.

(E) is the only choice that reflects the author's definition in the passage. I hope this helps!
_________________