Last visit was: 20 Jul 2024, 10:03 It is currently 20 Jul 2024, 10:03
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.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Director
Director
Joined: 05 Feb 2018
Posts: 755
Own Kudos [?]: 2307 [13]
Given Kudos: 139
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
GPA: 2.77
WE:General Management (Other)
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 28 Jan 2017
Posts: 15
Own Kudos [?]: 10 [4]
Given Kudos: 60
GMAT 1: 640 Q47 V31
Send PM
Director
Director
Joined: 05 Feb 2018
Posts: 755
Own Kudos [?]: 2307 [1]
Given Kudos: 139
Location: India
Concentration: Finance
GPA: 2.77
WE:General Management (Other)
Send PM
Intern
Intern
Joined: 25 Feb 2019
Posts: 30
Own Kudos [?]: 42 [0]
Given Kudos: 94
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, General Management
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GMAT 2: 730 Q50 V38
GRE 1: Q168 V155
GPA: 3.27
WE:Web Design (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1947, ga [#permalink]
navjot177 wrote:
Why i am not able to comprehend this passage. I have read this passage twice but still i am not getting the primary purpose of this passage. Any experts?

I don't think there is much to comprehend in this passage. It only share some details about effects of some past legislation on pay of union workers. Slowly and steady moves towards particular case of colored people.
The one thing that caught most of my attention is the contrast that it wants to present between previous research's conclusion and new assertion.
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14065
Own Kudos [?]: 36676 [0]
Given Kudos: 5830
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1947, ga [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Purpose and Main Idea:

The author’s purpose is to examine a variety of studies, many of them in disagreement, about how (and indeed whether) right-to-work laws have impacted wages. This is done more in the manner of a survey than an argument; hence, the “main idea” is little more than the general statement in passage as:

Quote:
Such a finding has important implications regarding the demographics of employment and wages in right-to-work states.


that studies like Carroll’s (and the “pioneering” one of Ashenfelter) have “important implications,” most notably that Black workers’ wages may be depressed by right-to-work laws.


Hope it Helps

navjot177 wrote:
Why i am not able to comprehend this passage. I have read this passage twice but still i am not getting the primary purpose of this passage. Any experts?
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14065
Own Kudos [?]: 36676 [2]
Given Kudos: 5830
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1947, ga [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Expert Reply
Q1. The reasoning behind the “literature” (Highlighted), as that reasoning is presented in the passage, is most analogous to the reasoning behind which one of the following situations?

Explanation

As if it weren’t bad enough that the section begins with a tough passage, the passage begins with one of the toughest question types, akin to Parallel Reasoning in the LR sections. On top of that, to get the answer, you have to reread a lot of context: Though the question stem’s “literature” (Highlighted), it’s not described until lines next 5 lines, by the critic of that literature, Mr. Carroll. He says that the researchers believe the right-to-work laws have minimal impact because they have simply looked at whether the laws have decreased union membership and said, “Hey, they haven’t, so there’s no impact.” In the same way, (E)’s transit system asserts that a fare hike has had no negative effects simply because ridership hasn’t decreased. In both cases, a look at sheer numbers prompts a hasty conclusion that may not be supported by other relevant data.

(A)’s conclusion weighs benefits and disadvantages and states one side’s argument for why a law should be passed. That’s a recommendation, not at all similar to the value judgment regarding the impact of right-to-work laws found in lines

"Much of the literature concerning right-to-work laws implies that such legislation has not actually had a significant impact. This point of view, however, has not gone uncriticized. Thomas V Carroll has proposed that the conclusions drawn by previous researchers are attributable to their myopic focus on the premise that, unless right-to-work laws significantly reduce union membership within a state, they have no effect."

(B) includes evidence that amounts to a value judgment (“The well-off can afford the tax”) but, similar to (A), concludes with a strongly implied recommendation suggested by the proponents: The tax should be passed. It doesn’t conclude that “X has had no impact”— which is what we need.

(C) The students pre- and post-curriculum change might seem to parallel the workers preand post- right-to-work laws. But nothing in lines above has a parallel to (C)’s charge of unfair treatment. (C) would work better if it went like so: “Since there are as many students since the curriculum change as there were before, the change has had no effect on the student body.”

(D), far from concluding that a phenomenon (the new policy) has had no effect, concludes that its effect has been major.


Hope it helps

Gagan0009 wrote:
Can anyone explain the very first question. Thanks in advance
Retired Moderator
Joined: 08 Dec 2013
Status:Greatness begins beyond your comfort zone
Posts: 2093
Own Kudos [?]: 8987 [2]
Given Kudos: 171
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.2
WE:Information Technology (Consulting)
Send PM
Re: The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1947, ga [#permalink]
2
Kudos
Took almost 13 mins including 5 mins 30 seconds to read as I misread a few lines. All correct

Para 1- Taft-Hartley Act- prohibits union shop agreements; Much of literature says right-to-work laws did not have a significant impact; Thomas V Carroll says otherwise-- union power reduces
Para 2- right-to-work laws--> decrease union power--> minority workers suffer more; Ashenfelter findings- craft vs industrial unionism

Q1. The reasoning behind the “literature” (Highlighted), as that reasoning is presented in the passage, is most analogous to the reasoning behind which one of the following situations?
(E) A fare increase in a public transportation system does not significantly reduce the number of fares sold: the management of the public transportation system asserts, therefore, that the fare hike has had no negative effects.- Correct

Thomas V Carroll has proposed that the conclusions drawn by previous researchers are attributable to their myopic focus on the premise that, unless right-to-work laws significantly reduce union membership within a state, they have no effect.

Specifically, Carroll indicates that while right-to-work laws may not “destroy” unions by reducing the absolute number of unionized workers, they do impede the spread of unions and thereby reduce wages within right-to-work states.

Q2. According to the passage, which one of the following is true of Carroll’s study?
(C) It argues that right-to-work laws have affected wages in right-to-work states.- Correct

Because the countervailing power of unions is weakened in right-to-work states, manufacturers and their suppliers can act cohesively in competitive labor markers, thus lowering wages in the affected industries.

Q3. It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes which one of following about craft unions?
(A) Craft unions have been successful in ensuring that the wages of their members remain higher than the wages of nonunion workers in the same occupational groups.

although craft unionism increase the differential between the wages of White workers and Black workers due to the traditional exclusion of minority workers from unions in the craft sectors of the labor market

Q4. Which one of the following best describes the effect industrial unionism has had on the wages of Black workers relative to those of White workers, as that effect is presented in the passage?
(E) Industrial unionism has contributed strongly to a 3 percent decrease in the wage differential between Black workers and White workers.

Ashenfelter estimates that industrial unionism decreases the differential between the wages of Black workers and White workers by about 3 percent

Q5. According to the passage, which one of the following could counteract the effects of a decrease in unions’ economic power to raise wages in right-to-work states?
(B) strong economic growth that creates labor shortages

Black workers in right-to-work states would, therefore, experience a decline in their relative economic positions unless there is strong economic growth in right-to-work states, creating labor shortages and thereby driving up wages.

Q6. Which one of the following best describes the passage as a whole?
(A) an overview of a problem in research methodology and a recommended solution to that problem- incorrect; the problem in research methodology might be the one(Thomas V Carroll has proposed that the conclusions drawn by previous researchers are attributable to their myopic focus on the premise) stated by Caroll but no solution to that problem is recommended
(B) a comparison of two competing theories and a suggestion for reconciling them- incorrect; there are no competing theories and there is no reconciliation
(C) a critique of certain legislation and a proposal for modification of that legislation- incorrect; there is no proposal for modification
(D) a review of research that challenges the conclusions of earlier researchers- Correct
(E) a presentation of a specific case that confirms the findings of an earlier study- incorrect
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Posts: 14065
Own Kudos [?]: 36676 [1]
Given Kudos: 5830
GPA: 3.62
Send PM
Re: The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1947, ga [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Explanation


Q3. It can be inferred from the passage that the author believes which one of following about craft unions?

Difficulty Level: 750

Explanation

Craft unions are mentioned once and once only: as part of the “important fact,” cited by Ashenfelter, that minorities have been traditionally excluded from membership in such unions and that therefore craft unionism increases the gap between Black and White wages.

(A) paraphrases this idea that, through craft unions, more money is earned by members (largely White) than non-members (most Blacks).

(B) Nothing is said about increased membership in craft unions. If anything, the exclusion of a large number of workers would tend to depress the total.

(C) is a distortion of the comparison between craft and industrial unions. Yes, the latter have more minority members and tend to reduce the Black/White wage differential, but we never learn anything about the rate at which wages rise in different unions.

(D) We are told that right-to-work laws have a negative effect on wages of industrial workers, but we can infer that they would also affect the wages of craft union members who, as Ashenfelter reports, are mostly white.

(E) misinterprets the point made at the end of para 2 (which is rather far removed from the craft union reference). We know that a healthy economy can create a demand for workers and raise their wages. But there’s no way to tell from the info given which group—craft or industrial—would be more likely to experience wage increases under these circumstances. For all we know, the increase in wages brought on by labor shortages applies only to the industrial sector.

Answer: A


Hope it helps

vasuca10 wrote:
Total 5/6 correct .......Good Level of Passage

Can anyone please explain Q Three ?
Manager
Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2020
Posts: 104
Own Kudos [?]: 63 [0]
Given Kudos: 865
Location: India
Schools: Yale '20 (D)
GMAT 1: 220 Q2 V2
Send PM
Re: The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1947, ga [#permalink]
AndrewN GMATNinja KarishmaB yashikaaggarwal

I am confused with the below para. There is just one word "agreements" that has created a lot of mess in my mind. I thought the word "agreements" here should be replaced with "law" but I am not sure.

The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1947, gave states the power to enact “right-to-work” legislation that prohibits union shop agreements. According to such an agreement, a labor union negotiates wages and working conditions for all workers in a business, and all workers are required to belong to the union.


What I understood is - Congress gave states the power to make "right to work" law, the law that prohibits union shop agreements.

In these agreements, a labor union is doing negotiations on behalf of all workers.

My Question- Are we saying here that the law ,once enact, will prohibit the labor union from making negotiations ?
or Are we saying here that the law ,once enact, will let the labor union to make negotiations ?
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Posts: 3507
Own Kudos [?]: 6981 [0]
Given Kudos: 500
Re: The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1947, ga [#permalink]
Expert Reply
Shadyshades wrote:
AndrewN GMATNinja KarishmaB yashikaaggarwal

I am confused with the below para. There is just one word "agreements" that has created a lot of mess in my mind. I thought the word "agreements" here should be replaced with "law" but I am not sure.

The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1947, gave states the power to enact “right-to-work” legislation that prohibits union shop agreements. According to such an agreement, a labor union negotiates wages and working conditions for all workers in a business, and all workers are required to belong to the union.


What I understood is - Congress gave states the power to make "right to work" law, the law that prohibits union shop agreements.

In these agreements, a labor union is doing negotiations on behalf of all workers.

My Question- Are we saying here that the law ,once enact, will prohibit the labor union from making negotiations ?
or Are we saying here that the law ,once enact, will let the labor union to make negotiations ?

Hello, Shadyshades. The first interpretation is the correct one, since prohibits is the governing idea. It might help to replace the phrase at the beginning of the second sentence with a modifying in which:

Quote:
The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1947, gave states the power to enact “right-to-work” legislation that prohibits union shop agreements [in which] a labor union negotiates wages and working conditions for all workers in a business, and all workers are required to belong to the union.

Another way to arrive at an accurate interpretation is to ask yourself what is prohibited, as in, The Taft-Hartley Act... legislation that prohibits __________, and to fill in the blank accordingly. For the sake of accuracy, I should point out that it is not the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act that directly prohibits the agreements in question; rather, the act gives states the power to pass their own legislation that bans such agreements.

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
Manager
Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2020
Posts: 104
Own Kudos [?]: 63 [0]
Given Kudos: 865
Location: India
Schools: Yale '20 (D)
GMAT 1: 220 Q2 V2
Send PM
Re: The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1947, ga [#permalink]
AndrewN wrote:
Shadyshades wrote:
AndrewN GMATNinja KarishmaB yashikaaggarwal

I am confused with the below para. There is just one word "agreements" that has created a lot of mess in my mind. I thought the word "agreements" here should be replaced with "law" but I am not sure.

The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1947, gave states the power to enact “right-to-work” legislation that prohibits union shop agreements. According to such an agreement, a labor union negotiates wages and working conditions for all workers in a business, and all workers are required to belong to the union.


What I understood is - Congress gave states the power to make "right to work" law, the law that prohibits union shop agreements.

In these agreements, a labor union is doing negotiations on behalf of all workers.

My Question- Are we saying here that the law ,once enact, will prohibit the labor union from making negotiations ?
or Are we saying here that the law ,once enact, will let the labor union to make negotiations ?

Hello, Shadyshades. The first interpretation is the correct one, since prohibits is the governing idea. It might help to replace the phrase at the beginning of the second sentence with a modifying in which:

Quote:
The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1947, gave states the power to enact “right-to-work” legislation that prohibits union shop agreements [in which] a labor union negotiates wages and working conditions for all workers in a business, and all workers are required to belong to the union.

Another way to arrive at an accurate interpretation is to ask yourself what is prohibited, as in, The Taft-Hartley Act... legislation that prohibits __________, and to fill in the blank accordingly. For the sake of accuracy, I should point out that it is not the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act that directly prohibits the agreements in question; rather, the act gives states the power to pass their own legislation that bans such agreements.

Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew


Thanks a lot AndrewN
GMAT Club Bot
Re: The Taft-Hartley Act, passed by the United States Congress in 1947, ga [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6989 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
236 posts
GRE Forum Moderator
14065 posts