In an unfinished but highly suggestive series of essays

Question

In an unfinished but highly suggestive series of essays, the late Sarah Eisenstein has focused attention on the evolution of working women’s values from the turn of the century to the First World War. Eisenstein argues that turn-of-the-century women neither wholly accepted nor rejected what she calls the dominant “ideology of domesticity,” but rather took this and other available ideologies—feminism, socialism, trade unionism—and modified or adapted them in light of their own experiences and needs. In thus maintaining that wage-work helped to produce a new “consciousness” among women, Eisenstein to some extent challenges the recent, controversial proposal by Leslie Tentler that for women the work experience only served to reinforce the attractiveness of the dominant ideology. According to the Tentler, the degrading conditions under which many female wage earners worked made them view the family as a source of power and esteem available nowhere else in their social world. In contrast, Eisenstein’s study insists that wage-work had other implications for women’s identities and consciousness. Most importantly, her work aims to demonstrate that wage-work enabled women to become aware of themselves as a distinct social group capable of defining their collective circumstance. Eisenstein insists that as a group working-class women were not able to come to collective consciousness of their situation until they began entering the labor force, because domestic work tended to isolate them from one another.

Unfortunately, Eisenstein’s unfinished study does not develop these ideas in sufficient depth or detail, offering tantalizing hints rather than an exhaustive analysis. Whatever Eisenstein’s overall plan may have been, in its current form her study suffers from the limited nature of the sources she depended on. She uses the speeches and writings of reformers and labor organizers, who she acknowledges were far from representative, as the voice of the typical woman worker. And there is less than adequate attention given to the differing values of immigrant groups that made up a significant proportion of the population under investigation. While raising important questions, Eisenstein’s essays do not provide definitive answer, and it remains for others to take up the challenges they offer.

Unfortunately, Eisenstein’s unfinished study does not develop these ideas in sufficient depth or detail, offering tantalizing hints rather than an exhaustive analysis. Whatever Eisenstein’s overall plan may have been, in its current form her study suffers from the limited nature of the sources she depended on. She uses the speeches and writings of reformers and labor organizers, who she acknowledges were far from representative, as the voice of the typical woman worker. And there is less than adequate attention given to the differing values of immigrant groups that made up a significant proportion of the population under investigation. While raising important questions, Eisenstein’s essays do not provide definitive answer, and it remains for others to take up the challenges they offer.   1 
 1. The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) criticize a scholar’s assumptions and methodology
(B) evaluate an approach to women’s study
(C) compare two sociological theories
(D) correct a misconception about feminist theory
(E) defend an unpopular ideology

2 
 2. It can be inferred from the passage that, in Eisenstein’s view, working women at the turn of the century had which of the following attitudes toward the dominant ideology of their time?

(A) They resented the dominant ideology as degrading.
(B) They preferred the dominant ideology to other available ideologies.
(C) They began to view the dominant ideology more favorably as a result of their experiences in the labor force.
(D) They accepted some but not all aspects of the dominant ideology.
(E) They believed that the dominant ideology isolated them from one another.

3 
 3. Which of the following best describes the organization of the first paragraph of the passage?

(A) A chronological account of a historical development is presented, and then future developments are predicted.
(B) A term is defined according to several different schools of thought, and then a new definition is formulated.
(C) A theory is presented, an alternative viewpoint is introduced, and then the reasoning behind the initial theory is summarized.
(D) A tentative proposal is made, reasons for and against it are weighed, and then a modified version of the proposal is offered.
(E) A controversy is described, its historical implications are assessed, and then a compromise is suggested.

4 
 4. Which of the following would the author of the passage be most likely to approve as a continuation of Eisenstein’s study?

(A) An oral history of prominent women labor organizers
(B) An analysis of letters and diaries written by typical female wage earners at the turn of the century
(C) An assessment of what different social and political groups defined as the dominant ideology in the early twentieth century
(D) A theoretical study of how socialism and feminism influenced one another at the turn of the century
(E) A documentary account of labor’s role in the introduction of women into the labor force

SVaidyaraman · Accepted Answer

1. For the main idea or the primary purpose, focus on the following:

(i) The first and the last sentences of the first para and if there are many paras , may be the beginning of the second para.

"In an unfinished but highly suggestive series of essays, the late Sarah Eisenstein has focused attention on the evolution of working women’s values from the turn of the century to the First World War."
.... 
"Eisenstein insists that as a group working-class women were not able to come to collective consciousness of their situation until they began entering the labor force, because domestic work tended to isolate them from one another."

(ii) The first and the last sentences of the last para

"Unfortunately, Eisenstein’s unfinished study does not develop these ideas in sufficient depth or detail, offering tantalizing hints rather than an exhaustive analysis."
...
"While raising important questions, Eisenstein’s essays do not provide definitive answer, and it remains for others to take up the challenges they offer."

Choice B is the closest because we can see that what is being done is an evaluation of an approach. Others don't fit.

2. The relevant part for this question is:

"Eisenstein argues that turn-of-the-century women neither wholly accepted nor rejected what she calls the dominant “ideology of domesticity,” but rather took this and other available ideologies—feminism, socialism, trade unionism—and modified or adapted them in light of their own experiences and needs. "

D best fits the above.

3. The relevant parts for this question are:
 
(i) The start

"In an unfinished but highly suggestive series of essays, the late Sarah Eisenstein has focused attention on the evolution of working women’s values from the turn of the century to the First World War."

(ii) Any shift from what is being presented

"Eisenstein to some extent challenges the recent, controversial proposal by Leslie Tentler that for women the work experience only served to reinforce the attractiveness of the dominant ideology. "

(iii) The end

"Most importantly, her work aims to demonstrate that "

Choice C best describes the organization

4. The relevant parts for this question are:

"Unfortunately, Eisenstein’s unfinished study does not develop these ideas in sufficient depth or detail, offering tantalizing hints rather than an exhaustive analysis"

"She uses the speeches and writings of reformers and labor organizers, who she acknowledges were far from representative, as the voice of the typical woman worker."

Choice B would best address the inadequacies mentioned by the author.

chechaxo · Answer

Hi All,

Took me 7 minutes to crack this one, and i would consider this as a relatively easy passage.

Explainations: 
249. The primary purpose of the passage is to
(A) criticize a scholar’s assumptions and methodology
(B) evaluate an approach to women’s study - 
(C) compare two sociological theories
(D) correct a misconception about feminist theory
(E) defend an unpopular ideology

Strong contenders are A and B. The rest can easily be eliminated.
As far as A is concerned the author is not out rightly criticizing Eisenstein’s work. 
He rather is studying her approach, the underlying assumption and the shortcomings.
Hence, B.

250. It can be inferred from the passage that, in Eisenstein’s view, working women at the turn of the century had which of the following attitudes toward the dominant ideology of their time?
(A) They resented the dominant ideology as degrading.
(B) They preferred the dominant ideology to other available ideologies.
(C) They began to view the dominant ideology more favorably as a result of their experiences in the labor force.
(D) They accepted some but not all aspects of the dominant ideology.
(E) They believed that the dominant ideology isolated them from one another.

Strong contenders are C and D. 
However in C the entire sentence is not true. We cannot infer that the women considered the dominant ideology as "more FAVORABLE".
Like C, B suffers from the same shortcomings. The passage does not mention that the women preferred other available ideologies over dominant ideologies. 
A is clearly incorrect as the passage mentions that the women neither accepted not rejected the dominant ideology.
E is not what the women believed, it was Eisenstein’s view.
Hence D is the answer

251. Which of the following best describes the organization of the first paragraph of the passage?
(A) A chronological account of a historical development is presented, and then future developments are predicted.
(B) A term is defined according to several different schools of thought, and then a new definition is formulated.
(C) A theory is presented, an alternative viewpoint is introduced, and then the reasoning behind the initial theory is summarized.
(D) A tentative proposal is made, reasons for and against it are weighed, and then a modified version of the proposal is offered.
(E) A controversy is described, its historical implications are assessed, and then a compromise is suggested.

In any passage that you read, try to get the structure and the main point ideas right.
In my opinion, most GMAT RC passages have atleast one question on the aforementioned themes.
The answer has to be C, as the passage clearly presents a theory and then the alternate view point (that of Tentler) is discussed.
The rest of the options can easily be eliminated if you inculcate the practice to read to identify the structure/mainpoint.

252. Which of the following would the author of the passage be most likely to approve as a continuation of Eisenstein’s study?
(A) An oral history of prominent women labor organizers
(B) An analysis of letters and diaries written by typical female wage earners at the turn of the century
(C) An assessment of what different social and political groups defined as the dominant ideology in the early twentieth century
(D) A theoretical study of how socialism and feminism influenced one another at the turn of the century
(E) A documentary account of labor’s role in the introduction of women into the labor force

In the final passage the author mentions a shortcoming in Eisenstien's work.
- " She uses the speeches and writings of reformers and labor organizers, who she acknowledges were far from representative, as the voice of the typical woman worker" . Further she mentions "Eisenstein’s essays do not provide definitive answer, and it remains for others to take up the challenges they offer".
Clearly further work should focus on the works of the subjects being studied as narrated my the subjects themselves.
(B) An analysis of letters and diaries written by typical female wage earners at the turn of the century - seems befitting.

Regards,
Chechaxo

Nis20 · Answer

GMATNinja

Why is C not the right choice? In 2nd paragraph the author mentions about the lack of attention to immigrant groups (different social groups)

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 4 
 
While it’s true that the author of the passage may support further study on the differing values of particular immigrant groups, he/she does not indicate that there is any debate as to the dominant ideology in the early twentieth century. In fact, Eisenstein, with whom the author tends to agree, identifies the dominant ideology as that of domesticity.

While it’s possible that different social and political groups adhered to different ideologies, there’s little evidence to support the idea that those groups would not identify the “ideology of domesticity” as dominant in the early twentieth century. There seems to be consensus on that matter, or at the very least, the author is not interested in the debate. For that reason, we can eliminate (C).

I hope that helps!

PriyamRathor · Answer

Hi Experts,
 GMATNinja 
 KarishmaB 
 MartyTargetTestPrep 
In Question No. 1 , I cannot get my head around to why CHOICE A is incorrect.

My reasoning:-
The entire 2nd Paragraph criticizes the methodology of Eisenstein's . 
I am quoting the abstracts from the paragraph 
" Unfortunately E's unfinished study doesn't develop these ideas in sufficient depth /E's plan suffers from the limited nature of source she dependent"

Furthermore to add to my reasoning, Choice B states "EVALUATE an approach to women's study " . Bringing my CR knowledge, the word EVALUATE means analyzing the positive and negative aspect of something/someone. But the author only talks about the negatives of the Eisenstein's methodology. He/She never talks about the positive aspect of Eisenstein's methods.

In-addition to the above reasoning if we take the dictionary meaning of the word EVALUATE ie JUDGE ( as per Cambridge dictionary ) then I feel that Choice A and Choice B are more or less conveying the same thing.

Thanks !

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

" assumptions and  methodology"

The passage does not mention any assumptions made by Eisenstein at all, let alone criticize them.

Positive   and/or   negative. You don't have to do both. 
(Your "evaluation" of something CAN be that it's perfect and that there's nothing negative to say about it. Your "evaluation" CAN also be that everything is done poorly and you can't think of anything positive to say.)

A completely negative evaluation is still an evaluation.

Namangupta1997 · Answer

ThatDudeKnows   KarishmaB

I want to take this particular passage as a base to ask a generic question that sometimes perplexes me. How can we be sure that a "negative evaluation" is not a "criticism"? I think there is definitely a subtle difference. How do we efficiently identify this nuance?

We see in this particular passage, there is surely an evaluation. At the same time, in the second paragraph, the author has a tone of criticism, so to speak. If we are to envelop the whole passage into a single idea, would we say that it is a "negative" evaluation or straight off criticism?

KarishmaB · Answer

The difference is subtle but the good news is that you do not have to make a decision based on that difference alone.

We know that 'criticise the assumptions' is certainly wrong since the passage doesn't talk about assumptions. 
'Evaluating an approach' makes a lot more sense then.

The passages that GMAT presents will more often be evaluations. Criticism involve a little more subjectivity on the author's part. Evaluations are objective. 
A is incomplete. A is based on a theory which has been proven wrong. - Evaluation
A serves no purpose. - Likely Criticism 
A fails to make an impact on the reader's mind. - Criticism
GMAT being all about formal, business language does gravitate toward a more objective tone. Though the takeaway here is NOT that "criticism is wrong on GMAT." Remember, there are no rules on what GMAT can and cannot do.

Sneha2021 · Answer

KarishmaB 
Why Q2, E is incorrect?

2. It can be inferred from the passage that, in Eisenstein’s view, working women at the turn of the century had which of the following attitudes toward the dominant ideology of their time?

(E) They believed that the dominant ideology isolated them from one another.
 I think it's incorrect because this belief was shared by Eisenstein. The working women at the turn of the century never had such attitudes toward the dominant ideology.
Is my reasoning correct?

Thank you!

KarishmaB · Answer

This is all what we are told about the attitude of working women:

Eisenstein argues that turn-of-the-century women neither wholly accepted nor rejected what she calls the dominant “ideology of domesticity,” but rather took this and other available ideologies—feminism, socialism, trade unionism—and modified or adapted them in light of their own experiences and needs.

So answer is (D).

We don't know whether they believed that the “ideology of domesticity” isolated them from one another.

This is all we are given:
 Eisenstein insists that as a group working-class women were not able to come to collective consciousness of their situation until they began entering the labor force, because domestic work tended to isolate them from one another.

We are given why Eisenstein thinks working-class women were not able to come to collective consciousness. We don't know if the women believed this too. Hence, answer is not (E).

agrasan · Answer

Hi experts  KarishmaB   GMATNinja   MartyMurray   DmitryFarber

I am still not clear on question-1 option A.
If we read the second para, "She uses the speeches and writings of reformers and labor organizers, who she acknowledges were far from representative, as the voice of the typical woman worker. And there is less than adequate attention given to the differing values of immigrant groups that made up a significant proportion of the population under investigation."

Aren't these lines assumptions made by Eisenstein for his study in the form of wrong representatives and different immigrant groups? If these are not assumptions then what they will be?

Even if we assume those lines are assumptions then option A will be wrong as it talks about criticism which is ONLY in para-2 whereas the passage (P1, P2) talks about both positives and negatives which will be like an evaluation of Eisenstein's study. Is this another correct way to approach?

KarishmaB · Answer

Even if we assume those lines are assumptions then option A will be wrong as it talks about criticism which is ONLY in para-2 whereas the passage (P1, P2) talks about both positives and negatives which will be like an evaluation of Eisenstein's study. Is this another correct way to approach?

Yes, this is correct.

rak08 · Answer

Can you please explain in Q4 why are we selecting " letters" option when the passage clearly mentions that they are not representative enough.
So basically if someone has to continue her passage they should have a better source.

Others are equally irrelevant but this seems to be contradicting.

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 4 The passage states that Eisenstein "uses the speeches and writings of reformers and labor organizers, who she acknowledges were far from representative , as the voice of the typical woman worker." According to the author, the speeches and writings of reformers and labor organizers are not sufficient because they do NOT represent the typical woman worker. Choice (B), on the other hand, talks about letters and diaries written by typical female wage earners at the turn of the century. Because the letters and diaries are written by TYPICAL female workers, they would represent the typical woman worker (unlike the speeches and writings mentioned in the passage). For more on Question 4, check out this post: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-an-unfini ... l#p2863957.

kabirgandhi · Answer

For Q1, I chose A instead of B,

When the author was describing Eisenstein's study, he mentioned that it is overly simplistic, and not exhaustive enough, since she assumes that her sample of women is representative of women in general, between 1900 and 1945 (the turn of the century and World War).

Even though the author does give a slightly positive opinion of the study in the first few lines, "unfinished but highly suggestive", suggestive is not a clear enough compliment, and for the rest of the 1st para, when discussing the study's importance, his tone is descriptive rather than argumentative, which does not tell us much about his opinion.

In para 2, he openly criticizes the study and points out its flaws.

Option A seems like a good fit, based on this.

GMATNinja   WhitEngagePrep   KarishmaB   GMATGuruNY

KarishmaB · Answer

Think about this - even if there is some criticism in the passage, is the author criticizing the  scholar’s assumptions and methodology?
Clearly articulate which assumptions and which methodologies he criticized? The criticism is essentially this - that it is incomplete. The nature of her sources were incomplete and reformers and labor whose speeches she uses were not representative - which she herself acknowledges. So more depth and more discussion was required. 
The author believes that the theory raises important questions and is highly suggestive. He did not write the article to criticize the theory. If anything, it seems that he wants other researchers to pay attention to it and complete what she started. 
Also keep in mind that "criticize" is a strong word for a GMAT piece of writing. It needs to be well and truly warranted from the passage.

kabirgandhi · Answer

Can the assumption that the sample she took is reflective of the population be a valid one in this case? Point taken about "criticism", it has to be clear almost throughout the passage what the author's tone is. But I would still argue the tone here is definitely a consistently a negative one, even though not too strong.

egmat · Answer

Criticism vs Evaluation - The Key Distinction:

Criticism  = "You're WRONG"
 
 Attacks the approach as flawed 
 Says assumptions/methodology are mistaken 
 One-sided negative

Evaluation  = "Here's what works AND what's lacking"
 
 Balanced assessment 
 Notes limitations without calling the approach wrong 
 Acknowledges value while pointing out gaps

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

What criticism would look like: 
 
 "Eisenstein's assumption is  unfounded " 
 "Her methodology  fails  to..." 
 "This approach is  fundamentally flawed "

What the passage actually says: 
✅ "Highly suggestive" 
✅ "Raises important questions" 
❌ "Unfinished" 
❌ "Does not develop in sufficient depth"

The negatives point to  incompleteness , not  wrongness .
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
 RC Principle: 
"Criticize" requires the author to say something is  WRONG .
Saying something is  INCOMPLETE  or  NEEDS MORE DEPTH  is evaluation - a balanced assessment that acknowledges both value and limitations.

In an unfinished but highly suggestive series of essays

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

In an unfinished but highly suggestive series of essays

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