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.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
04 Jan 2024, 21:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
B
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
45%
(medium)
Question Stats:
64% (01:00) correct
36%
(01:31)
wrong
based on 25
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the author’s defense of the bottom-up approach?
A. Statistical reanalysis shows that Delgado’s sample under-represented autocratic regimes, where policy reversals are rare.
B. Newly declassified correspondence reveals that New Zealand’s cabinet had already drafted a women’s-suffrage bill months before the mass petition was submitted.
C. A biography of Martin Luther King Jr. indicates that he frequently consulted with U.S. presidents on civil-rights strategy.
D. Recent scholarship suggests that early historians exaggerated the scale of grassroots participation in the Civil Rights Movement.
E. Oral histories from petition organizers indicate that they received covert funding from wealthy industrialists supportive of suffrage.
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.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the author’s defense of the bottom-up approach?
A. Statistical reanalysis shows that Delgado’s sample under-represented autocratic regimes, where policy reversals are rare.
B. Newly declassified correspondence reveals that New Zealand’s cabinet had already drafted a women’s-suffrage bill months before the mass petition was submitted.
C. A biography of Martin Luther King Jr. indicates that he frequently consulted with U.S. presidents on civil-rights strategy.
D. Recent scholarship suggests that early historians exaggerated the scale of grassroots participation in the Civil Rights Movement.
E. Oral histories from petition organizers indicate that they received covert funding from wealthy industrialists supportive of suffrage.
04 Jan 2024, 21:25
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.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the author’s defense of the bottom-up approach?
A. Statistical reanalysis shows that Delgado’s sample under-represented autocratic regimes, where policy reversals are rare.
B. Newly declassified correspondence reveals that New Zealand’s cabinet had already drafted a women’s-suffrage bill months before the mass petition was submitted.
C. A biography of Martin Luther King Jr. indicates that he frequently consulted with U.S. presidents on civil-rights strategy.
D. Recent scholarship suggests that early historians exaggerated the scale of grassroots participation in the Civil Rights Movement.
E. Oral histories from petition organizers indicate that they received covert funding from wealthy industrialists supportive of suffrage.
A) Incorrect. Delgado’s data cover policy reversals in democracies. Even if autocracies were under-represented, the author’s argument is about democracies, where citizens can mobilize and pressure leaders. Expanding the sample to regimes that seldom allow mobilisation would not directly refute the claim that grassroots action matters where such action is possible.
B) Correct. The author cites New Zealand’s 1893 suffrage victory as evidence that ordinary citizens compelled decision-makers to act. If new documents show the cabinet had already drafted a suffrage bill before the petition arrived, the policy change came from the top, not from grassroots pressure. This revelation would strip away one of the passage’s two flagship examples and sharply undercut the defence of the bottom-up approach.
C) Incorrect. Martin Luther King Jr. consulting presidents does not show the civil-rights push was driven by elites. Consultations can occur after grassroots momentum builds and still reflect bottom-up pressure. The example would weaken the argument only if it proved presidential initiative preceded mass mobilisation, which it does not.
D) Incorrect. Overstating the number of marchers would weaken the illustration but not necessarily the causal link between mobilisation and reform. Even a smaller movement could still have shifted political calculus, so this point softens, rather than seriously damages, the bottom-up claim.
E) Incorrect. Funding from sympathetic industrialists shows some elite involvement, yet the passage allows for alliances and still argues that rank-and-file agitation changes outcomes. Financial help does not mean ordinary participants lacked causal impact, so the author’s thesis remains largely intact.
Answer: B
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.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the author’s defense of the bottom-up approach?
A. Statistical reanalysis shows that Delgado’s sample under-represented autocratic regimes, where policy reversals are rare.
B. Newly declassified correspondence reveals that New Zealand’s cabinet had already drafted a women’s-suffrage bill months before the mass petition was submitted.
C. A biography of Martin Luther King Jr. indicates that he frequently consulted with U.S. presidents on civil-rights strategy.
D. Recent scholarship suggests that early historians exaggerated the scale of grassroots participation in the Civil Rights Movement.
E. Oral histories from petition organizers indicate that they received covert funding from wealthy industrialists supportive of suffrage.
A) Incorrect. Delgado’s data cover policy reversals in democracies. Even if autocracies were under-represented, the author’s argument is about democracies, where citizens can mobilize and pressure leaders. Expanding the sample to regimes that seldom allow mobilisation would not directly refute the claim that grassroots action matters where such action is possible.
B) Correct. The author cites New Zealand’s 1893 suffrage victory as evidence that ordinary citizens compelled decision-makers to act. If new documents show the cabinet had already drafted a suffrage bill before the petition arrived, the policy change came from the top, not from grassroots pressure. This revelation would strip away one of the passage’s two flagship examples and sharply undercut the defence of the bottom-up approach.
C) Incorrect. Martin Luther King Jr. consulting presidents does not show the civil-rights push was driven by elites. Consultations can occur after grassroots momentum builds and still reflect bottom-up pressure. The example would weaken the argument only if it proved presidential initiative preceded mass mobilisation, which it does not.
D) Incorrect. Overstating the number of marchers would weaken the illustration but not necessarily the causal link between mobilisation and reform. Even a smaller movement could still have shifted political calculus, so this point softens, rather than seriously damages, the bottom-up claim.
E) Incorrect. Funding from sympathetic industrialists shows some elite involvement, yet the passage allows for alliances and still argues that rank-and-file agitation changes outcomes. Financial help does not mean ordinary participants lacked causal impact, so the author’s thesis remains largely intact.
Answer: B
17 May 2025, 21:45
Kudos
Bookmarks
The passage and questions have been updated.
