Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
May 0510:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
GMAT Inequalities is a high-frequency topic in GMAT Quant, but many students struggle because the concepts behave differently from standard algebra. Understanding the right rules, patterns, and edge cases can significantly improve both speed and accuracy.- May 06
08:30 AM PDT
-09:30 AM PDT
In Episode 3 of our GMAT Ninja Critical Reasoning series, we tackle Discrepancy, Paradox, and Explain an Oddity questions. You know the feeling: the passage gives you two facts that seem completely contradictory.... - May 08
08:00 AM PDT
-08:30 AM PDT
Join the special YouTube live-stream for selecting the winners of GMAT Club MBA Scholarships sponsored by Juno live. Watch who gets these coveted MBA scholarships offered by GMAT Club and Juno.
04 Jan 2024, 21:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Historians have long debated whether the grand arcs of human affairs are best explained by the edicts of rulers or by the collective agency of ordinary people. Proponents of what is often called the “top-down” approach contend that decisive events, from wars to economic crises, were precipitated chiefly by sovereigns and their advisors, whose rare access to coercive power allowed them to steer outcomes inaccessible to the masses. Yet a contrasting “bottom-up” tradition, first articulated systematically by social historian E. P. Thompson, argues that the cumulative actions of non-elites can redirect even the most formidable political designs.
The debate is not merely theoretical. A quantitative study by Delgado (2018) found that 57 percent of major policy reversals in twentieth-century democracies were preceded by sustained grass-roots mobilization rather than by changes of leadership. Two cases are illustrative. In the United States, the Civil Rights Movement eventually compelled federal intervention despite presidents who, at the outset, regarded civil-rights legislation as electorally hazardous. Likewise, New Zealand’s 1893 enfranchisement of women, decades ahead of most Western nations, was achieved only after a nationwide petition carrying nearly one-tenth of the colony’s population forced Parliament’s hand. While charismatic figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. or suffragist Kate Sheppard became recognizable emblems, contemporary diaries and court records show that thousands of anonymous participants organized meetings, gathered signatures, and sustained boycotts that made reversal politically costlier than reform.
Critics of the bottom-up lens counter that successful movements typically exploit moments of elite division: without cracks among decision-makers, popular pressure alone may dissipate. Still, defenders reply that fractures at the top often arise because rank-and-file agitation alters the calculus of those in power. Whether one views ordinary actors as auteurs or merely catalytic, their presence complicates any historical narrative that confines causal agency to palaces and parliaments.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. analyze two historical episodes to show that political elites are frequently divided during moments of reform
B. challenge the usefulness of quantitative methods in historical research
C. evaluate the claim that collective popular action can be a decisive force in shaping major political outcomes
D. reconcile opposing historiographical schools by demonstrating that both elites and masses are equally influential
E. argue that top-down narratives remain the most reliable framework for interpreting social change
The debate is not merely theoretical. A quantitative study by Delgado (2018) found that 57 percent of major policy reversals in twentieth-century democracies were preceded by sustained grass-roots mobilization rather than by changes of leadership. Two cases are illustrative. In the United States, the Civil Rights Movement eventually compelled federal intervention despite presidents who, at the outset, regarded civil-rights legislation as electorally hazardous. Likewise, New Zealand’s 1893 enfranchisement of women, decades ahead of most Western nations, was achieved only after a nationwide petition carrying nearly one-tenth of the colony’s population forced Parliament’s hand. While charismatic figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. or suffragist Kate Sheppard became recognizable emblems, contemporary diaries and court records show that thousands of anonymous participants organized meetings, gathered signatures, and sustained boycotts that made reversal politically costlier than reform.
Critics of the bottom-up lens counter that successful movements typically exploit moments of elite division: without cracks among decision-makers, popular pressure alone may dissipate. Still, defenders reply that fractures at the top often arise because rank-and-file agitation alters the calculus of those in power. Whether one views ordinary actors as auteurs or merely catalytic, their presence complicates any historical narrative that confines causal agency to palaces and parliaments.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. analyze two historical episodes to show that political elites are frequently divided during moments of reform
B. challenge the usefulness of quantitative methods in historical research
C. evaluate the claim that collective popular action can be a decisive force in shaping major political outcomes
D. reconcile opposing historiographical schools by demonstrating that both elites and masses are equally influential
E. argue that top-down narratives remain the most reliable framework for interpreting social change
04 Jan 2024, 21:21
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
Historians have long debated whether the grand arcs of human affairs are best explained by the edicts of rulers or by the collective agency of ordinary people. Proponents of what is often called the “top-down” approach contend that decisive events, from wars to economic crises, were precipitated chiefly by sovereigns and their advisors, whose rare access to coercive power allowed them to steer outcomes inaccessible to the masses. Yet a contrasting “bottom-up” tradition, first articulated systematically by social historian E. P. Thompson, argues that the cumulative actions of non-elites can redirect even the most formidable political designs.
The debate is not merely theoretical. A quantitative study by Delgado (2018) found that 57 percent of major policy reversals in twentieth-century democracies were preceded by sustained grass-roots mobilization rather than by changes of leadership. Two cases are illustrative. In the United States, the Civil Rights Movement eventually compelled federal intervention despite presidents who, at the outset, regarded civil-rights legislation as electorally hazardous. Likewise, New Zealand’s 1893 enfranchisement of women, decades ahead of most Western nations, was achieved only after a nationwide petition carrying nearly one-tenth of the colony’s population forced Parliament’s hand. While charismatic figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. or suffragist Kate Sheppard became recognizable emblems, contemporary diaries and court records show that thousands of anonymous participants organized meetings, gathered signatures, and sustained boycotts that made reversal politically costlier than reform.
Critics of the bottom-up lens counter that successful movements typically exploit moments of elite division: without cracks among decision-makers, popular pressure alone may dissipate. Still, defenders reply that fractures at the top often arise because rank-and-file agitation alters the calculus of those in power. Whether one views ordinary actors as auteurs or merely catalytic, their presence complicates any historical narrative that confines causal agency to palaces and parliaments.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. analyze two historical episodes to show that political elites are frequently divided during moments of reform
B. challenge the usefulness of quantitative methods in historical research
C. evaluate the claim that collective popular action can be a decisive force in shaping major political outcomes
D. reconcile opposing historiographical schools by demonstrating that both elites and masses are equally influential
E. argue that top-down narratives remain the most reliable framework for interpreting social change
A. Incorrect. This answer's scope is too narrow. Elite disagreement is mentioned only as a counter-argument; however, it is not the passage’s central purpose. Eliminate.
B. Incorrect. The author uses Delgado’s statistics approvingly, not to criticize them. Eliminate.
C. CORRECT ANSWER. The entire passage examines evidence including two cases focusing on the collective popular action and addresses counter-arguments against bottom-up causation.
D. Incorrect. The author contrasts the schools but does not claim they are “equally” influential or reconciled. Eliminate.
E. Incorrect. The passage actually appears to support the opposite view. Eliminate.
Answer: C
Historians have long debated whether the grand arcs of human affairs are best explained by the edicts of rulers or by the collective agency of ordinary people. Proponents of what is often called the “top-down” approach contend that decisive events, from wars to economic crises, were precipitated chiefly by sovereigns and their advisors, whose rare access to coercive power allowed them to steer outcomes inaccessible to the masses. Yet a contrasting “bottom-up” tradition, first articulated systematically by social historian E. P. Thompson, argues that the cumulative actions of non-elites can redirect even the most formidable political designs.
The debate is not merely theoretical. A quantitative study by Delgado (2018) found that 57 percent of major policy reversals in twentieth-century democracies were preceded by sustained grass-roots mobilization rather than by changes of leadership. Two cases are illustrative. In the United States, the Civil Rights Movement eventually compelled federal intervention despite presidents who, at the outset, regarded civil-rights legislation as electorally hazardous. Likewise, New Zealand’s 1893 enfranchisement of women, decades ahead of most Western nations, was achieved only after a nationwide petition carrying nearly one-tenth of the colony’s population forced Parliament’s hand. While charismatic figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. or suffragist Kate Sheppard became recognizable emblems, contemporary diaries and court records show that thousands of anonymous participants organized meetings, gathered signatures, and sustained boycotts that made reversal politically costlier than reform.
Critics of the bottom-up lens counter that successful movements typically exploit moments of elite division: without cracks among decision-makers, popular pressure alone may dissipate. Still, defenders reply that fractures at the top often arise because rank-and-file agitation alters the calculus of those in power. Whether one views ordinary actors as auteurs or merely catalytic, their presence complicates any historical narrative that confines causal agency to palaces and parliaments.
The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. analyze two historical episodes to show that political elites are frequently divided during moments of reform
B. challenge the usefulness of quantitative methods in historical research
C. evaluate the claim that collective popular action can be a decisive force in shaping major political outcomes
D. reconcile opposing historiographical schools by demonstrating that both elites and masses are equally influential
E. argue that top-down narratives remain the most reliable framework for interpreting social change
A. Incorrect. This answer's scope is too narrow. Elite disagreement is mentioned only as a counter-argument; however, it is not the passage’s central purpose. Eliminate.
B. Incorrect. The author uses Delgado’s statistics approvingly, not to criticize them. Eliminate.
C. CORRECT ANSWER. The entire passage examines evidence including two cases focusing on the collective popular action and addresses counter-arguments against bottom-up causation.
D. Incorrect. The author contrasts the schools but does not claim they are “equally” influential or reconciled. Eliminate.
E. Incorrect. The passage actually appears to support the opposite view. Eliminate.
Answer: C
17 May 2025, 21:46
Kudos
Bookmarks
The passage and questions have been updated.
