Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 22:11 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 22:11
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
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
Your Progress

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
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
rao
User avatar
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Last visit: 06 Oct 2011
Posts: 473
Own Kudos:
320
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 473
Kudos: 320
mgmat CAT 05 Aug 2008, 01:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
In the 1950s, reading was taught to young children primarily through the use of simple primers depicting the middle-class non-adventures of “Dick and Jane.” Rudolph Flesch’s bestselling 1955 book Why Johnny Can’t Read attacked these primers, calling them “horrible, stupid, insipid, … tasteless little readers” and asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.


Which of the following can be inferred about Rudolph Flesch based on the information presented in the passage?
1 He did not like children’s books.
2 He was an advocate of phonetic reading.
3 He was a children’s book critic.
4 He believed that parents should read to their children often.
5 He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children.



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
User avatar
nmohindru
User avatar
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Last visit: 06 Jul 2013
Posts: 157
Own Kudos:
488
Given Kudos: 1
Posts: 157
Kudos: 488
mgmat CAT 05 Aug 2008, 01:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rao_1857
In the 1950s, reading was taught to young children primarily through the use of simple primers depicting the middle-class non-adventures of “Dick and Jane.” Rudolph Flesch’s bestselling 1955 book Why Johnny Can’t Read attacked these primers, calling them “horrible, stupid, insipid, … tasteless little readers” and asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.


Which of the following can be inferred about Rudolph Flesch based on the information presented in the passage?
1 He did not like children’s books.
2 He was an advocate of phonetic reading.
3 He was a children’s book critic.
4 He believed that parents should read to their children often.
5 He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children.
Show more

IMO E)
avatar
arjunrv
avatar
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Last visit: 21 Oct 2008
Posts: 1
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
mgmat CAT 05 Aug 2008, 02:04
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I think the right answer is B .
User avatar
rao
User avatar
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Last visit: 06 Oct 2011
Posts: 473
Own Kudos:
320
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 473
Kudos: 320
mgmat CAT 05 Aug 2008, 06:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nmohindru
rao_1857
In the 1950s, reading was taught to young children primarily through the use of simple primers depicting the middle-class non-adventures of “Dick and Jane.” Rudolph Flesch’s bestselling 1955 book Why Johnny Can’t Read attacked these primers, calling them “horrible, stupid, insipid, … tasteless little readers” and asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.


Which of the following can be inferred about Rudolph Flesch based on the information presented in the passage?
1 He did not like children’s books.
2 He was an advocate of phonetic reading.
3 He was a children’s book critic.
4 He believed that parents should read to their children often.
5 He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children.

IMO E)
Show more

Thats right ... even I was thinking that this is the ans as it can directly be infered form last line. But for some reason this is not OA
User avatar
rao
User avatar
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Last visit: 06 Oct 2011
Posts: 473
Own Kudos:
320
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 473
Kudos: 320
mgmat CAT 05 Aug 2008, 06:46
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
arjunrv
I think the right answer is B .
Show more

Can you please explain and also why E is wrong?
User avatar
bigfernhead
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Last visit: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 518
Own Kudos:
2,090
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 518
Kudos: 2,090
mgmat CAT 05 Aug 2008, 09:15
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Darn it. I chose C over B.

Technically, isn't he critizing children's book?

Why Johnny Can’t Read attacked these primers, calling them “horrible, stupid, insipid, … tasteless little readers” and asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.
avatar
amarKat
avatar
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Last visit: 22 Feb 2011
Posts: 1
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
mgmat CAT 05 Aug 2008, 09:41
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IMO B
User avatar
jallenmorris
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Last visit: 09 Oct 2014
Posts: 1,227
Own Kudos:
963
Given Kudos: 32
Location: Oklahoma City
Concentration: Life
Schools:Hard Knocks
Posts: 1,227
Kudos: 963
mgmat CAT 05 Aug 2008, 09:48
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
B.

The stem states "such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to 'sound out' each word phonetically." The author of this book would only want the children to do this if the author thought it was a good idea, so he must be an advocate of this style of learning to read.


rao_1857
In the 1950s, reading was taught to young children primarily through the use of simple primers depicting the middle-class non-adventures of “Dick and Jane.” Rudolph Flesch’s bestselling 1955 book Why Johnny Can’t Read attacked these primers, calling them “horrible, stupid, insipid, … tasteless little readers” and asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.


Which of the following can be inferred about Rudolph Flesch based on the information presented in the passage?
1 He did not like children’s books.
Not supported and too general. Flesch doesn't like the "Dick and Jane" books. This doesn't mean he dislikes all children's books.
2 He was an advocate of phonetic reading.
3 He was a children’s book critic.
This is not supported. He is a critic of this particular book. The stem says nothign about Flesch being a critic of all childrens' books in general.
4 He believed that parents should read to their children often.
He probably does, but nowhere in the stem is this ever mentioned.
5 He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children.
The fact that he wanted the books in the bookstores does not mean the books are too advanced. It merely means he wants children to have more access to books the kids can read. No where in the stem does it state anything about how advanced these books are. Flesh asserts that the Dick and Jane books are horribl, stupid and insipid, but never too advanced. In fact, the stem infers the opposite. These are boring and do not give kids incentive to read. If they were to complex, the reasoning would be different.
Show more
User avatar
bigfernhead
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Last visit: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 518
Own Kudos:
2,090
Given Kudos: 5
Posts: 518
Kudos: 2,090
mgmat CAT 05 Aug 2008, 09:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
....asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.

JM, the bolded part makes it seem like he's criticing all books. Don't you think?

jallenmorris
B.

The stem states "such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to 'sound out' each word phonetically." The author of this book would only want the children to do this if the author thought it was a good idea, so he must be an advocate of this style of learning to read.


rao_1857
In the 1950s, reading was taught to young children primarily through the use of simple primers depicting the middle-class non-adventures of “Dick and Jane.” Rudolph Flesch’s bestselling 1955 book Why Johnny Can’t Read attacked these primers, calling them “horrible, stupid, insipid, … tasteless little readers” and asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.


Which of the following can be inferred about Rudolph Flesch based on the information presented in the passage?
1 He did not like children’s books.
Not supported and too general. Flesch doesn't like the "Dick and Jane" books. This doesn't mean he dislikes all children's books.
2 He was an advocate of phonetic reading.
3 He was a children’s book critic.
This is not supported. He is a critic of this particular book. The stem says nothign about Flesch being a critic of all childrens' books in general.
4 He believed that parents should read to their children often.
He probably does, but nowhere in the stem is this ever mentioned.
5 He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children.
The fact that he wanted the books in the bookstores does not mean the books are too advanced. It merely means he wants children to have more access to books the kids can read. No where in the stem does it state anything about how advanced these books are. Flesh asserts that the Dick and Jane books are horribl, stupid and insipid, but never too advanced. In fact, the stem infers the opposite. These are boring and do not give kids incentive to read. If they were to complex, the reasoning would be different.
Show more
User avatar
jallenmorris
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Last visit: 09 Oct 2014
Posts: 1,227
Own Kudos:
963
Given Kudos: 32
Location: Oklahoma City
Concentration: Life
Schools:Hard Knocks
Posts: 1,227
Kudos: 963
mgmat CAT 05 Aug 2008, 10:02
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
No, he's not criticizing all books, he's crticizing the bookstores. It's like criticizing a bad chef because the food he prepares is horrible. We're not criticizing all food, we're criticizing the chef and using the food as an example.

Here, Flesch's comments go beyond the children's Dick and Jane book and to the bookstores. It's kind of a turn in Flesch's complaints, but it's not criticizing all books, just book stores and people's approach in that era of how to teach kids to read.


bigfernhead
....asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.

JM, the bolded part makes it seem like he's criticing all books. Don't you think?

jallenmorris
B.

The stem states "such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to 'sound out' each word phonetically." The author of this book would only want the children to do this if the author thought it was a good idea, so he must be an advocate of this style of learning to read.


rao_1857
In the 1950s, reading was taught to young children primarily through the use of simple primers depicting the middle-class non-adventures of “Dick and Jane.” Rudolph Flesch’s bestselling 1955 book Why Johnny Can’t Read attacked these primers, calling them “horrible, stupid, insipid, … tasteless little readers” and asserting that such boring stories gave no incentive for children to read on their own and learn to “sound out” each word phonetically. Flesch also bemoaned the fact that there was not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.


Which of the following can be inferred about Rudolph Flesch based on the information presented in the passage?
1 He did not like children’s books.
Not supported and too general. Flesch doesn't like the "Dick and Jane" books. This doesn't mean he dislikes all children's books.
2 He was an advocate of phonetic reading.
3 He was a children’s book critic.
This is not supported. He is a critic of this particular book. The stem says nothign about Flesch being a critic of all childrens' books in general.
4 He believed that parents should read to their children often.
He probably does, but nowhere in the stem is this ever mentioned.
5 He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children.
The fact that he wanted the books in the bookstores does not mean the books are too advanced. It merely means he wants children to have more access to books the kids can read. No where in the stem does it state anything about how advanced these books are. Flesh asserts that the Dick and Jane books are horribl, stupid and insipid, but never too advanced. In fact, the stem infers the opposite. These are boring and do not give kids incentive to read. If they were to complex, the reasoning would be different.
Show more
User avatar
rao
User avatar
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Last visit: 06 Oct 2011
Posts: 473
Own Kudos:
320
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 473
Kudos: 320
mgmat CAT 05 Aug 2008, 15:21
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thanks Jallenmorris,

One follow-up question:

not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.

Dosn't that means "He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children."
User avatar
jallenmorris
User avatar
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Last visit: 09 Oct 2014
Posts: 1,227
Own Kudos:
963
Given Kudos: 32
Location: Oklahoma City
Concentration: Life
Schools:Hard Knocks
Posts: 1,227
Kudos: 963
mgmat CAT 05 Aug 2008, 15:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
There are certainly 2 different ways to interpret that sentence.

1) In terms of children's books, there are books in the book store, but they are too advanced for young children.

OR

2) In terms of children's books, there are no children's books in the book store, so the only ones there are certainly too much for young children.

I think the key here is that in E, the scope changes. Flesch mentions "not a single book in bookstores". This broadens the subject from the Dick and Jane primers to all books in book stores. Then in E, the question authors bring the broad statement about book and correlate it with the Dick and Jane primers, when the author of the stem didn't do this.

rao_1857
Thanks Jallenmorris,

One follow-up question:

not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.

Dosn't that means "He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children."
Show more
User avatar
rao
User avatar
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Last visit: 06 Oct 2011
Posts: 473
Own Kudos:
320
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 473
Kudos: 320
mgmat CAT 11 Aug 2008, 04:57
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jallenmorris
There are certainly 2 different ways to interpret that sentence.

1) In terms of children's books, there are books in the book store, but they are too advanced for young children.

OR

2) In terms of children's books, there are no children's books in the book store, so the only ones there are certainly too much for young children.

I think the key here is that in E, the scope changes. Flesch mentions "not a single book in bookstores". This broadens the subject from the Dick and Jane primers to all books in book stores. Then in E, the question authors bring the broad statement about book and correlate it with the Dick and Jane primers, when the author of the stem didn't do this.

rao_1857
Thanks Jallenmorris,

One follow-up question:

not a single book in bookstores that first and second graders could read by themselves.

Dosn't that means "He believed that the primers of the 1950s were too advanced for young children."
Show more

Thanks felling better. This is a tricky one!



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Verbal Questions Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderators:
miag
188 posts
u1983
Current Student
710 posts
MikeScarn
Current Student
275 posts