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.

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.

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!

Hi pradeepss,
This question expects you to pick an option that best parallels the same kind of logic / scenario mentioned in the passage.

The passage talks about generational chauvinism - to judge past eras by present standards.
It talks about judging the officers from past generations according to present day standards.

Option A talks about judging present day monarchs because of the actions of past generations : if you observe carefully, you realize
that option A is not an example of generational chauvinism.

Option E talks about labeling a nineteenth-century politician as "corrupt" for engaging in once-acceptable practices considered intolerable today.
This is exactly what the author describes as "generational chauvinism" to describe how the officers of the past have been judged.

Hope that helps,
Peo

Hi GMATNinja, could you help in answering the 8th question.

8. Which of the following actions can best be described as indulging in "generational chauvinism" (lines 40-41) as that practice is defined in the passage?

By current standards of racial egalitarianism, these men's paternalism toward African Americans was racist. But to call their feelings “powerful racial prejudices” is to indulge in generational chauvinism—to judge past eras by present standards.

(A) Condemning a present-day monarch merely because many monarchs have been tyrannical in the past.

(B) Clinging to the formal standards of politeness common in one's youth to such a degree that any relaxation of those standards is intolerable

(C) Questioning the accuracy of a report written by an employee merely because of the employee's gender.

(D) Deriding the superstitions accepted as "science" in past eras without acknowledging the prevalence of irrational beliefs today.

(E) Labeling a nineteenth-century politician as "corrupt" for engaging in once-acceptable practices considered intolerable today.

QUESTION 7:

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.


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:

I assume you are referring to the first question...


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:

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:

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!