The premise with which the multiculturalists begin is unexceptional

Question

The premise with which the multiculturalists begin is unexceptional: that it is important to recognize and to celebrate the wide range of cultures that exist in the United States. In what sounds like a reflection of traditional American pluralism, the multiculturalists argue that we must recognize difference, that difference is legitimate; in its kindlier versions, multiculturalism represents the discovery on the part of minority groups that they can play a part in molding the larger culture even as they are molded by it. And on the campus multiculturalism, defined more locally as the need to recognize cultural variations among students, has tried with some success to talk about how a racially and ethnically diverse student body can enrich everyone’s education.

Phillip Green, a political scientist at Smith and a thoughtful proponent of multiculturalism, notes that for a significant portion of the students the politics of identity is all-consuming. Students he says “are unhappy with the thin gruel of rationalism. They require a therapeutic curriculum to overcome not straightforward racism but ignorant stereotyping.”

But multiculturalism’s hard-liners, who seem to make up the majority of the movement, damn as racism any attempt to draw the myriad of American groups into a common American culture. For these multiculturalists, differences are absolute, irreducible, intractable—occasions not for understanding but for separation. The multiculturalist, it turns out, is not especially interested in the great American hyphen, in the syncretistic (and therefore naturally tolerant) identities that allow Americans to belong to more than a single culture, to be both particularists and universalists.

The time-honored American mixture of assimilation and traditional allegiance is denounced as a danger to racial and gender authenticity. This is an extraordinary reversal of the traditional liberal commitment to a “truth” that transcends parochialisms. In the new race/class/gender formation, universality is replaced by, among other things, feminist science Nubian numerals (as part of an Afro-centric science), and what Marilyn Frankenstein of the University of Massachusetts-Boston describes as “ethno-mathematics,” in which the cultural basis of counting comes to the fore.

The multiculturalists insist on seeing all perspectives as tainted by the perceiver’s particular point of view. Impartial knowledge, they argue, is not possible, because ideas are simply the expression of individual identity, or of the unspoken but inescapable assumptions that are inscribed in a culture or a language. The problem, however, with this warmed-over Nietzscheanism is that it threatens to leave no ground for anybody to stand on. So the multiculturalists make a leap, necessary for their own intellectual survival, and proceed to argue that there are some categories, such as race and gender, that do in fact embody an unmistakable knowledge of oppression. Victims are at least epistemologically lucky. Objectivity is a mask for oppression. And so an appalled former 1960s radical complained to me that self-proclaimed witches were teaching classes on witchcraft. “They’re not teaching students how to think,” she said, “they’re telling them what to believe.”   1 
 1. “Multiculturalist relativism” is the notion that there is no such thing as impartial or objective knowledge. The author seems to be grounding his criticism of this notion on

(A) the clear evidence that science has indeed discovered “truths” that have been independent of both language and culture.
(B) the conclusion that relativism leaves one with no clear notions of any one thing that is true.
(C) the absurdity of claiming that knowledge of oppression is more valid than knowledge of scientific facts.
(D) the agreement among peoples of all cultures as to certain undeniable truths—e.g., when the sky is clear, day is warmer than night.
(E) the fact that “truth” is not finitely definable and therefore that any discussion of impartial or objective truth is moot.

2 
 2. Which one of the following best describes the attitude of the writer toward the multicultural movement?

(A) Tolerant. It may have some faults, but it is well-meaning overall.
(B) Critical. A formerly admirable movement has been taken over by radical intellectuals.
(C) Disinterested. He seems to be presenting an objective report.
(D) Enthusiastic. The author embraces the multiculturalist movement and is trying to present it in a favorable light.
(E) Ambivalent. Like a moth to a flame he is simultaneously attracted and repulsed by the movement.

3 
 3. The author speaks about the “politics of identity” that Phillip Green, a political scientist at Smith, notes is all-consuming for many of the students. Considering the subject of the passage, which one of the following best describes what the author means by “the politics of identity”?

(A) The attempt to discover individual identities through political action
(B) The political agenda that aspires to create a new pride of identity for Americans
(C) The current obsession for therapy groups that help individuals discover their inner selves
(D) The trend among minority students to discover their identities in their ethnic groups rather than in their individuality
(E) The increased political activism of minorities on college campuses

4 
 4. The author states that in a “kindlier version” of multiculturalism, minorities discover “that they can play a part in molding the larger culture even as they are molded by it.” If no new ethnic groups were incorporated into the American culture for many centuries to come, which one of the following would be the most probable outcome of this “kindlier version”?

(A) At some point in the future, there would be only one culture with no observable ethnic differences.
(B) Eventually the dominant culture would overwhelm the minority cultures, who would then lose their ethnic identities.
(C) The multiplicity of ethnic groups would remain but the characteristics of the different ethnic groups would change.
(D) The smaller ethnic groups would remain, and they would retain their ethnic heritage.
(E) The minority cultures would eventually overwhelm the dominant culture, which would then lose its identity.

5 
 5. According to a hard-line multiculturalist, which one of the following groups is most likely to know the “truth” about political reality?

(A) Educated people who have learned how to see reality from many different perspectives.
(B) A minority group that has suffered oppression at the hands of the majority.
(C) High government officials who have privileged access to secret information.
(D) Minorities who through their education have risen above the socioeconomic position occupied by most members of their ethnic group.
(E) Political scientists who have thoroughly studied the problem.

6 
 6. Which one of the following ideas would a multiculturalist NOT believe?

(A) That we should recognize and celebrate the differences among the many cultures in the United States.
(B) That we can never know the “truth” because “truth” is always shaped by one’s culture.
(C) That “difference” is more important than “sameness.”
(D) That a school curriculum should be constructed to compensate for institutionalized racism.
(E) That different cultures should work to assimilate themselves into the mainstream culture so that eventually there will be no excuse for racism.

Cinematiccuisine · Accepted Answer

Summary: 
Para 1: Multiculture --> premise: Small grps can change culture of large groups. E.g. of Students 
Para 2: need of therapeutic curriculum that explains/interpret "indirect" form of racism
Para 3: Stringent Attitude of a ppl who support multiculturalism is explained -- author seems to be very critical
Para 4: this para is very difficult to interpret. All I understood that the author is explaining about some reversal; going away from traditional beliefs. 
Para 5: At a high level, multiculturalists have a view that is not generally acceptable so they are jumping ahead and stating that race and gender inherently show "incorrect treatment/malfunction (oppression). Again, with the example given in last statement, author seems to be critical/questioning.
====
With this, let's take a look at each question separately:
  Q1: “Multiculturalist relativism” is the notion that there is no such thing as impartial or objective knowledge. The author seems to be grounding his criticism of this notion on

To understand this, let's relook at para 5:
The multiculturalists insist on seeing all perspectives as tainted by the  perceiver’s particular point of view . Impartial knowledge, they argue, is not possible, because  ideas are simply the expression of individual identity , or of the unspoken but inescapable assumptions that are inscribed in a culture or a language.

The question relates to above lines where author mentions that ideas are simply expressions of individual's identity. now let's go through each choice.

Option (A) the clear evidence that science has indeed discovered “truths” that have been independent of both language and culture.  
 My explanation : Can't be interpreted from the para:
 Reason: 
The options says science has indeed discovered “truths” --> let's see if this is correct OR not. For this, let's look at para 4:
The time-honored American mixture of assimilation and traditional allegiance is denounced as a danger to racial and gender authenticity. This is an extraordinary reversal of the traditional liberal commitment to a “truth” that transcends parochialisms. In the new race/class/gender formation, universality is replaced by, among other things, feminist science Nubian numerals (as part of an Afro-centric science), and what Marilyn Frankenstein of the University of Massachusetts-Boston describes as “ethno-mathematics,” in which the cultural basis of counting comes to the fore.

Meaning: 
1) "Science refers to": I could be wrong here --> but this is how I interpreted: If some Afro student joins US university for MS in Maths, he/she would prefer counting numbers in their Afro language rather than using what the universal OR American way of counting. The word science here simply represents "local/Afro methods" of counting numbers. 
2) "Truths refers to": Afro member counting numbers in Afro-centric language is the TRUTH. That is how their culture is. so obviously, the a belief that everyone should adapt to American ways of counting numbers, will be 'reversal' to afro culture.

Again, now if we try to relate these 2 points, SCIENCE (discovery of counting methods in Afro lang) has nothing to do with TRUTH (I will use afro language for counting as that is what I have been using -- this is what the culture is)
Hence Science didn't give origin to culture (truth), Culture is 'local' ways of performing activities --> hence this option is NOT valid.

(B) the conclusion that relativism leaves one with no clear notions of any one thing that is true.  
 My explanation : Can be interpreted from the para; HOLD ON.
 Reason: 
The last para:
The multiculturalists insist on seeing all perspectives as tainted by the perceiver’s particular point of view. Impartial knowledge, they argue, is not possible, because ideas are simply the expression of individual identity, or of the unspoken but inescapable assumptions that are inscribed in a culture or a language

we can interpret from these lines that there's no clear notion, everything is upto interpretation of the perceiver’s particular point of view. This is supported from the para so HOLD ON TO IT.

(C) the absurdity of claiming that knowledge of oppression is more valid than knowledge of scientific facts.  
 My explanation : Incorrect option.
 Reason: 
As I mentioned in my summary of para 5:
Para 5: At a high level, multiculturalists have a view that is not generally acceptable so they are jumping ahead and stating that race and gender inherently show "incorrect treatment/malfunction (oppression). Again, with the example given in last statement, author seems to be critical/questioning.

So we can understand that 'knowledge of oppression' and 'scientific facts' are not compared here. This is irrelevant / incorrect option.

(D) the agreement among peoples of all cultures as to certain undeniable truths—e.g., when the sky is clear, day is warmer than night.  
 My explanation : Not relevant option.
 Reason: 
This is not relevant comparison. All other culture ppl here are not disagreeing with the undeniable truths. The other culture ppl prefer doing things in their way as that is how they have been brought up. The outcome still is achieved (counting numbers using Nubian numerals) -- but the method may vary.

(E) the fact that “truth” is not finitely definable and therefore that any discussion of impartial or objective truth is moot.  
 My explanation : incorrect option.
 Reason: 
Here, again the truth according to me refers to the local culture. As per the para, local cultures (as per para 4) can be defined as local methods / preference of doing certain things (basis of counting using Nubian numerals )

So the best option seems to be B.

--

Cinematiccuisine · Answer

if you have read my explanations of Q1 to Q4, then below questions will be easier to understand/interpret.

Q5: According to a hard-line multiculturalist, which one of the following groups is most likely to know the “truth” about political reality?

Meaning: we so far understood that minority Or Ethnic people faced racial discrimination. Author also talks about cultural differences between these small ethnic groups and how larger groups can be adapted/modified. So accordingly, we can now easily go through each option and understand the relevance.

(A) Educated people who have learned how to see reality from many different perspectives.
My explanation: Incorrect: The para is not talking about how education impacts thinking of majority of people about race or discrimination.

(B) A minority group that has suffered oppression at the hands of the majority.
My explanation:  correct:  This is more relevant option.

(C) High government officials who have privileged access to secret information.
My explanation: Incorrect: The para is not talking about how certain people get benefits while others do not. Para talks about how Larger grp ppl treat smaller grp ppl.

(D) Minorities who through their education have risen above the socioeconomic position occupied by most members of their ethnic group.
My explanation: Incorrect: The para is not talking about how education impacts thinking of minority people.

(E) Political scientists who have thoroughly studied the problem. 
My explanation: Incorrect: The para is talking that differences are absolute, irreducible, intractable. ideas are simply the expression of individual identity. So having some political scientists thoroughly studying and concluding will not align with overall flow of the para. hence this option is incorrect.

=======================
A6: Which one of the following ideas would a multiculturalist NOT believe?
(A) That we should recognize and celebrate the differences among the many cultures in the United States.
My explanation: Incorrect: This is gist being discussed through-out and believed by multiculturalist.

(B) That we can never know the “truth” because “truth” is always shaped by one’s culture.
My explanation: Incorrect: This is given in para 4 & 5.

(C) That “difference” is more important than “sameness.”
My explanation: Incorrect: This is given in para 3 (For these multiculturalists, differences are absolute, irreducible, intractable...) hence multiculturalist would believe in this.

(D) That a school curriculum should be constructed to compensate for institutionalized racism.
My explanation: Incorrect: This is given in para 2 (Phillip Green's proposition) hence multiculturalist would believe in this.

(E) That different cultures should work to assimilate themselves into the mainstream culture so that eventually there will be no excuse for racism.
My explanation:  Correct:  This is how the para started, multiculturalist does not believe in this.

--

Cinematiccuisine · Answer

Summary:
Para 1: Multiculture --> premise: Small grps can change culture of large groups. E.g. of Students 
Para 2: need of therapeutic curriculum that explains/interpret "indirect" form of racism
Para 3: Stringent Attitude of a ppl who support multiculturalism is explained -- author seems to be very critical
Para 4: this para is very difficult to interpret. All I understood that the author is explaining about some reversal; going away from traditional beliefs. 
Para 5: At a high level, multiculturalists have a view that is not generally acceptable so they are jumping ahead and stating that race and gender inherently show "incorrect treatment/malfunction (oppression). Again, with the example given in last statement, author seems to be critical/questioning.
====
With this, let's take a look at each question separately:
  Q2: Which one of the following best describes the attitude of the writer toward the multicultural movement?  
as per the summary, I personally felt that Author's tone was highly critical. even though para shows many 'difficult-to-interpret' words, there are some words (e.g. unhappy, gruel, extraordinary reversal etc) which indicate a soft of negative tone. let's look at each option.

(A) Tolerant. It may have some faults, but it is well-meaning overall.
 My explanation:  Incorrect: Definitely NOT tolerant.

(B) Critical. A formerly admirable movement has been taken over by radical intellectuals.
 My explanation:  Correct: Definitely, this aligns with the summary/tone.

(C) Disinterested. He seems to be presenting an objective report.
 My explanation:  Incorrect:Author used many examples in describing the para. so author is interested.

(D) Enthusiastic. The author embraces the multiculturalist movement and is trying to present it in a favorable light.
 My explanation:  Incorrect: Author did not appear enthusiastic.

(E) Ambivalent. Like a moth to a flame he is simultaneously attracted and repulsed by the movement.
 My explanation:  Incorrect: author is very clear throughout the explanation.

--

Cinematiccuisine · Answer

Summary:
Para 1: Multiculture --> premise: Small grps can change culture of large groups. E.g. of Students 
Para 2: need of therapeutic curriculum that explains/interpret "indirect" form of racism
Para 3: Stringent Attitude of a ppl who support multiculturalism is explained -- author seems to be very critical
Para 4: this para is very difficult to interpret. All I understood that the author is explaining about some reversal; going away from traditional beliefs. 
Para 5: At a high level, multiculturalists have a view that is not generally acceptable so they are jumping ahead and stating that race and gender inherently show "incorrect treatment/malfunction (oppression). Again, with the example given in last statement, author seems to be critical/questioning.
====
With this, let's take a look at each question separately:
 Q3: The author speaks about the “politics of identity” that Phillip Green, a political scientist at Smith, notes is all-consuming for many of the students. Considering the subject of the passage, which one of the following best describes what the author means by “the politics of identity”?

This is a simple question to answer if you understand the implicit meaning mentioned in the para 2. Here is the para 2:
Phillip Green, a political scientist at Smith and a thoughtful proponent of multiculturalism, notes that for a significant portion of the students the politics of identity is all-consuming. Students he says “are unhappy with the thin gruel of rationalism. They require a therapeutic curriculum to overcome not straightforward racism but ignorant stereotyping.”

Interpretation:
Students are unhappy about indirect (thin) racism. Students feel that there's no direct racism or no one is directly differentiating them based on their race or ethnicity but there's a sense of indirect racism that prevails amongst students. Let's consider another example: if there's a group of 5-6 Afro students, there are good chances that these members could form their own group and express such indirect racial experiences with each other. So author here is referring to such grp of students and their activity of discussing the racism among themselves as 'politics of identity'.

Author believes that if these students are taught that this thin racism is NOT deliberately done then there are good chances that students will not feel unhappy. Author says that Phillip Green recommended having a therapeutic curriculum that 'perhaps' teaches other race ppl that racism is happening due to ignorance. At the same time, this curriculum can also teach how to avoid such 'undeliberate' ways of racism.

Ok? now let's look at each choice.

(A) The attempt to discover individual identities through political action: 
My explanation: Incorrect: Author is not referring to discovering identities through politics.

(B) The political agenda that aspires to create a new pride of identity for Americans
My explanation: Incorrect: There is no political agenda. Racism happens due to ignorance.

(C) The current obsession for therapy groups that help individuals discover their inner selves
My explanation: Incorrect: Again, the purpose of these therapy sessions are to help remove misunderstanding as well as teach how not to contribute to racism 'indirectly'.

(D) The trend among minority students to discover their identities in their ethnic groups rather than in their individuality
My explanation:  Correct:  this option aligns with the explanation given above.

(E) The increased political activism of minorities on college campuses 
My explanation: Incorrect: again, there's no political activity being discussed here.

I hope this is clear.

-------------

Cinematiccuisine · Answer

Q4: The author states that in a “kindlier version” of multiculturalism, minorities discover “that they can play a part in molding the larger culture even as they are molded by it.” If no new ethnic groups were incorporated into the American culture for many centuries to come, which one of the following would be the most probable outcome of this “kindlier version”?

Meaning:
For this, let's look at the Para 1:
In what sounds like a reflection of traditional American pluralism, the multiculturalists argue that we must recognize difference, that difference is legitimate; in its kindlier versions, multiculturalism represents the discovery on the part of minority groups that they can play a part in molding the larger culture even as they are molded by it.

It means, 
1) when a group of different race/cast/ethnic members join the larger American culture --> they adapt themselves to larger American culture. 
2) At the same time, larger American culture can be adapted /changed/molded to the trends OR nuances offered by these smaller ethnic groups as each grp represents their own unique characteristics. 
3) As per question, if no ethnic groups are incorporated into larger American culture, then the larger culture will prevail. - very simple, isn't it?
Let's look at each option and see which option maps to our analysis.

(A) At some point in the future, there would be only one culture with no observable ethnic differences.
My explanation:  Correct . Aligns with our analogy.

(B) Eventually the dominant culture would overwhelm the minority cultures, who would then lose their ethnic identities.
My explanation: incorrect option. It's not about overwhelming.

(C) The multiplicity of ethnic groups would remain but the characteristics of the different ethnic groups would change.
My explanation: incorrect option. This doesn't align with our logic.

(D) The smaller ethnic groups would remain, and they would retain their ethnic heritage.
My explanation: incorrect option. This is totally opposite of what author concluded. hence incorrect option.

(E) The minority cultures would eventually overwhelm the dominant culture, which would then lose its identity. 
My explanation: incorrect option. similar logic to as that of option B.
--

KM666 · Answer

How did you go around interpreting it?
What you did was brilliant... is there any specific questions you asked yourself as you read that small para, or did the interpretation just flow into your mind as you read it.

Thanks!

Cinematiccuisine · Answer

===================== Thank you JohnM , workout . To be honest with you, even I took enormous time to read and interpret the entire para. As the para is quite difficult, I thought, I shouldn't concentrate on timings but just get the answers correct. That relieved much pressure

coming to specific paragraph... here is how I read it. Sorry, but again, this is little lengthy explanation.

Phillip Green , a political scientist at Smith and a thoughtful proponent of multiculturalism , notes that for a significant portion of the students the politics of identity is all-consuming . Students he says “ are unhappy with the thin gruel of rationalism . They require a therapeutic curriculum to overcome not straightforward racism but ignorant stereotyping .” The words marked in RED are difficult to interpret, so I skipped those. I just concentrated on words marked in Green --> here's how I read 1) Phillip Green notes that for a significant portion of the students the politics of identity is all-consuming (underlined part still not clear

) 2) Students are unhappy 3) They require a curriculum to overcome not straightforward racism well, at least, #2 & #3 sentences can be connected. i) It's clear that Students are unhappy ii) It's acknowledged that nobody is directly differentiating students (e.g. calling them African/Black/Indian/Brown skin etc). This can happen only if students are talking among themselves and sharing their experiences. (e.g. it's similar to the way we gossip about our bad boss OR a rude colleague and determine if actions are deliberate) iii) P.G. recommends a course to overcome indirect (not straightforward) racism I further thought --> if there's a course, it should teach both types of ppl (who feel racially abused and who are unknowingly doing the act of racial abuse) Now, I re-read the sentence 1 again. Initially, i couldn't understand the meaning of words --> "the politics of identity is all-consuming"... but after understanding i, ii, and iii, it's clear that students (as a group) understand & acknowledge indirect racism --> hence author is calling it as a "identity is all-consuming". All these thoughts align with option D. All other options are either expressing extreme opinion (B, E) OR not representing the context (A, C). I hope it's clear now. Please let me know if you need further help. --- Please give kudos

gmat8998 · Answer

jennpt  How would you suggest to approach this type of  meaning derivation  question. Didn't get any clue in this one!

The author speaks about the “politics of identity” that Phillip Green, a political scientist at Smith, notes is all-consuming for many of the students. Considering the subject of the passage, which one of the following best describes what the author means by “the politics of identity”?
(A) The attempt to discover individual identities through political action
(B) The political agenda that aspires to create a new pride of identity for Americans
(C) The current obsession for therapy groups that help individuals discover their inner selves
(D) The trend among minority students to discover their identities in their ethnic groups rather than in their individuality
(E) The increased political activism of minorities on college campuses

BrightOutlookJenn · Answer

Hi  gmat8998

Sorry for the delay in coming back to you on this one. Honestly, this passage is really not a GMAT-like passage, and so I honestly would not invest your time in analyzing it. Why do I say it's not GMAT-like?

1. The subject matter: critique of multiculturalism ... they've got to be kidding, right? GMAT chooses passages that celebrate and honor minority groups: women, people of color, Native peoples. A cynical person would say that GMAT is politically correct; a more strategic person would recognize that business schools are seeking to increase enrollment by members of such underrepresented groups. But in any case, I just can't believe that GMAT would ever choose a passage with a conservative "all this multiculturalism has gone too far!" political bent.

2. The question type. There is always evidence to support an answer for a GMAT question. When you read answer explanations in the OG, they always cite specific line numbers and quote the passage to prove why the correct answer is indeed correct. If the reader needs to make an inference, it will be a Critical Reasoning- style inference where we put two facts from the passage together, or find an assumption linking evidence and conclusion both discussed in the passage. But for the question you've mentioned here, I really do not find any evidence that I can use to infer the author's definition of "politics of identity."

All that said, I would be very careful in using any RC passages from unnamed sources. Are they worth your time? In the case of this one, I don't think so.

Best, Jennifer

The premise with which the multiculturalists begin is unexceptional

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

The premise with which the multiculturalists begin is unexceptional

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards