A recent history of the Chicago meat-packing industry and its workers : Reading Comprehension (RC)

can any one post the explanation

A recent history of the Chicago meat-packing industry and its workers examines how the industry grew from its appearance in the 1830's through the early 1890's. Meat-packers, the author argues, had good wages, working conditions, and prospects for advancement within the packinghouses and did not cooperate with labor agitators since labor relations were so harmonious. Because the history maintains that conditions were above standard for the era, the frequency of labor disputes especially in the mid-1880’s is not accounted for. The work ignores the fact that the 1880's were crucial years in American labor history, and that the packinghouse workers’ efforts were part of the national movement for labor reform.

In fact other historical sources for the late nineteenth century record deteriorating housing and high disease and infant mortality rates in the industrial community, due to low wages and unhealthy working conditions. Additional data from the University of Chicago suggest that the packinghouses were dangerous places to work. The government investigation which eventually led to the adoption of the 1906 Meat Inspection Act found the packinghouses unsanitary, while social workers observed that most of the workers were poorly paid and overworked. The history may be too optimistic because most of its data date from the 1880's at the latest, and the information provided from that decade is insufficiently analyzed. Conditions actually declined in the 1880’s, and continued to decline after the 1880’s, due to a reorganization of the packing process and a massive influx of unskilled workers. The deterioration in worker status partly a result of the new availability of unskilled and hence cheap labor, is not discussed. Though a detailed account of work in the packinghouses is attempted, the author fails to distinguish between the wages and conditions for skilled workers and for those unskilled laborers who comprised the majority of the industry’s workers from the 1880’s on. While conditions for the former were arguably tolerable due to the strategic importance of skilled workers in the complicated slaughtering, cutting, and packing process(though worker complaints about the rate and conditions of work were frequent), pay and conditions for the latter were wretched. The author’s misinterpretation of the origins of the feelings the meat-packers had for their industrial neighborhood may account for the history’s faulty generalizations. The pride and contentment the author remarks upon were, arguably, less the products of the industrial world of the packers ---the giant yards and the intricate plants--- than of the unity and vibrance of the ethnic cultures that formed a viable community on Chicago’s South Side. Indeed, the strength of this community succeeded in generating a social movement that effectively confronted the problems of the industry that provided its livelihood.

A recent history of the Chicago meat-packing industry and its workers examines how the industry grew from its appearance in the 1830's through the early 1890's.

Because the history maintains that conditions were above standard for the era, the frequency of labor disputes especially in the mid-1880’s is not accounted for. The work ignores the fact that the 1880's were crucial years in American labor history, and that the packinghouse workers’ efforts were part of the national movement for labor reform.

1. The passage is primarily concerned with discussing

(A) how historians ought to explain the origins of the conditions in the Chicago meatpacking industry
(B) why it is difficult to determine the actual nature of the conditions in the Chicago meat-packing industry
(C) why a particular account of the conditions in the Chicago meat-parking industry is inaccurate
(D) what ought to be included in any account of the Chicago meat-packers’ role in the national labor movement
(E) what data most relevant for an accurate account of the relations between Chicago meat-packers and Meat labor agitators

•Main idea (2)

Quote:

Because the history maintains that conditions were above standard for the era, the frequency of labor disputes especially in the mid-1880’s is not accounted for. The work ignores the fact that the 1880's were crucial years in American labor history, and that the packinghouse workers’ efforts were part of the national movement for labor reform.

The author of the passage claims that the recent work has problem. Also, the author argues that things were going negatively. Therefore, here we can tell that the author of the passage and the author of the recent work oppose to each other.

2. The author of the passage mentions all of the following as describing negative conditions in the meat-packing industry EXCEPT

(A) data from the University of Chicago
(B) a recent history of the meat-packing industry
(C) social workers
(D) historical sources for the late nineteenth century
(E) government records

Additional data from the University of Chicago suggest that the packinghouses were dangerous places to work.

A recent history of the Chicago meat-packing industry and its workers examines how the industry grew from its appearance in the 1830's through the early 1890's. Meat-packers, the author argues, had good wages, working conditions, and prospects for advancement within the packinghouses and did not cooperate with labor agitators since labor relations were so harmonious.

while social workers observed that most of the workers were poorly paid and overworked.

In fact other historical sources for the late nineteenth century record deteriorating housing and high disease and infant mortality rates in the industrial community, due to low wages and unhealthy working conditions.

The government investigation which eventually led to the adoption of the 1906 Meat Inspection Act found the packinghouses unsanitary, while social workers observed that most of the workers were poorly paid and overworked.

3. The author of the passage mentions the "social movement" generated by Chicago's South Side community primarily in order to

(A) inform the reader of events that occurred in the meat-packing industry after the period of time covered by the history
(B) suggest the history’s limitations by pointing out a situation that the history failed to explain adequately
(C) salvage the history's point of view by suggesting that there were positive developments in the meat-packing industry due to worker unity
(D) introduce a new issue designed to elaborate on the good relationship between the meat-packers and Chicago's ethnic communities
(E) suggest that the history should have focused more on the general issue of the relationship between labor movements and healthy industrial communities

The pride and contentment the author remarks upon were, arguably, less the products of the industrial world of the packers ---the giant yards and the intricate plants--- than of the unity and vibrance of the ethnic cultures that formed a viable community on Chicago’s South Side. Indeed, the strength of this community succeeded in generating a social movement that effectively confronted the problems of the industry that provided its livelihood.

4. According to the passage, the working conditions of skilled workers in the meatpacking industry during the 1880's were influenced by

(A) the workers' determined complaints about the rate and conditions of their work
(B) the efforts of social workers to improve sanitation in the packinghouses
(C) the workers' ability to perform the industry's complex tasks
(D) improvements in the industry's packing process that occurred in the 1880’s
(E) opportunities for job advancement due to the filling of less desirable positions by increasing numbers of unskilled workers

…the wages and conditions for skilled workers and for those unskilled laborers who comprised the majority of the industry’s workers from the 1880’s on. While conditions for the former were arguably tolerable due to the strategic importance of skilled workers in the complicated slaughtering, cutting, and packing process(though worker complaints about the rate and conditions of work were frequent), pay and conditions for the latter were wretched.

5. The author of the passage uses the second paragraph to

(A) summarize the main point of the history discussed in the passage
(B) explain why the history discussed in the passage has been disparaged by critics
(C) evaluate the findings of recent studies that undermine the premise of the history discussed in the passage
(D) introduce a hypothesis that will be discussed in detail later in the passage
(E) present evidence that is intended to refute the argument of the history discussed in the passage

• And then the whole second paragraph is supporting idea that supports the major main idea, which is second main idea.

And there is supporting ideas that strengthen, or explain, the main idea.

•Main idea (2)

Quote:

Because the history maintains that conditions were above standard for the era, the frequency of labor disputes especially in the mid-1880’s is not accounted for. The work ignores the fact that the 1880's were crucial years in American labor history, and that the packinghouse workers’ efforts were part of the national movement for labor reform.

The author of the passage claims that the recent work has problem. Also, the author argues that things were going negatively. Therefore, here we can tell that the author of the passage and the author of the recent work oppose to each other.

6. The tone of the author of the passage in discussing the meat-packer community on Chicago's South Side can best be described as one of

(A) appreciation of the community's ability to cope with difficult conditions
(B) admiration for the community's refusal to cooperate with labor agitators
(C) indignation at the kind of social conditions the community faced
(D) annoyance at the community's inability to abolish discrimination in the meat-packing industry
(E) concern that the meat-packers' feelings for their community have not been documented

The pride and contentment the author remarks upon were, arguably, less the products of the industrial world of the packers ---the giant yards and the intricate plants--- than of the unity and vibrance of the ethnic cultures that formed a viable community on Chicago’s South Side. Indeed, the strength of this community succeeded in generating a social movement that effectively confronted the problems of the industry that provided its livelihood.

7. The information in the passage suggests that the author of the history discussed in the passage made which of the following errors?

(A) Failing to recognize the effect of the diversity of the South Side community on the meat-packers' efforts to reform the industry
(B) Attributing good working conditions in the meat-packing industry to the efforts of labor agitators
(C) Overemphasizing the importance of the availability of unskilled labor as an influence on conditions in the meat packing industry
(D) Interpreting the meat-packers' feelings for their community as appreciation of their industry
(E) Failing to observe the pride and commitment felt by the meat-packers

The author’s misinterpretation of the origins of the feelings the meat-packers had for their industrial neighborhood may account for the history’s faulty generalizations.

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

A recent history of the Chicago meat-packing industry and its workers