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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies, Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence, and Excel in timed test environment
Join us in a comprehensive talk about the F1 Student Visa process with Travis Feuerbacher, former U.S. Visa Officer and licensed U.S. immigration attorney having expertise working for the U.S. Department of State
Ready to skyrocket your career with an MBA? Get ahead with our curated list of FREE courses and resources to kickstart your journey into business education!
Are you attending an MBA or Masters program outside in the US or Europe and wondering how to finance your studies? In this exclusive conversation, we discuss the collateral-free non-cosigner education loans...
Solve 30 high quality GMAT Focus practice questions in timed conditions. Take this GMAT practise test live with peers, analyze your GMAT study progress, and see where you stand in the GMAT student pool.
After just 3 months of studying with the TTP GMAT Focus course, Conner scored an incredible 755 (Q89/V90/DI83) on the GMAT Focus. In this live interview, he shares how he achieved his outstanding 755 (100%) GMAT Focus score on test day.
What do András from Hungary, Pablo from Mexico, Conner from the United States, Giorgio from Italy, Leo from Germany, and Rishab from India have in common? They all earned top scores on the GMAT Focus Edition using the Target Test Prep course!
Join us for an exclusive one-day event focused on mastering the GMAT and maximizing your preparation resources! Here's what you can expect: Don't miss out on this invaluable opportunity to supercharge your GMAT preparation journey.
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.
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.
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)
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
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.
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. 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.
....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. 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.
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 wrote:
....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. 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.
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."
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!
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.