It is currently 18 Oct 2017, 12:03

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# mgmat CAT

Author Message
Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 653

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2008, 01:27
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.
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.

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

Senior Manager
Joined: 06 Apr 2008
Posts: 429

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2008, 01:38
rao_1857 wrote:
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.
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)

Kudos [?]: 164 [0], given: 1

Intern
Joined: 15 Sep 2006
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2008, 02:04
I think the right answer is B .

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 653

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2008, 06:45
nmohindru wrote:
rao_1857 wrote:
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.
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)

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

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 653

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2008, 06:46
arjunrv wrote:
I think the right answer is B .

Can you please explain and also why E is wrong?

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 960

Kudos [?]: 294 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2008, 09:15
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.

Kudos [?]: 294 [0], given: 5

Intern
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 1

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2008, 09:41
IMO B

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

SVP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1867

Kudos [?]: 615 [0], given: 32

Location: Oklahoma City
Schools: Hard Knocks

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2008, 09:48
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 wrote:
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.
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.

_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a\$\$.

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 615 [0], given: 32

Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 960

Kudos [?]: 294 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2008, 09:56
....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 wrote:
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 wrote:
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.
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.

Kudos [?]: 294 [0], given: 5

SVP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1867

Kudos [?]: 615 [0], given: 32

Location: Oklahoma City
Schools: Hard Knocks

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2008, 10:02
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.

....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 wrote:
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 wrote:
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.
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.

_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a\$\$.

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 615 [0], given: 32

Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 653

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2008, 15:21
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."

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

SVP
Joined: 30 Apr 2008
Posts: 1867

Kudos [?]: 615 [0], given: 32

Location: Oklahoma City
Schools: Hard Knocks

### Show Tags

05 Aug 2008, 15:38
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 wrote:
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."

_________________

------------------------------------
J Allen Morris
**I'm pretty sure I'm right, but then again, I'm just a guy with his head up his a\$\$.

GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings

Kudos [?]: 615 [0], given: 32

Director
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 653

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

### Show Tags

11 Aug 2008, 04:57
jallenmorris wrote:
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 wrote:
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."

Thanks felling better. This is a tricky one!

Kudos [?]: 135 [0], given: 7

Re: mgmat CAT   [#permalink] 11 Aug 2008, 04:57
Display posts from previous: Sort by