Took 9 mins , including 3 mins 20 seconds to read

-The author talks about the effects of urban migration for Latin American women
-The author states that these effects cannot be easily understood and require to be further evaluated under a variety of situations

1 .
In the first paragraph…
“However, the effects of migration are more complex than these theorists presume. For example, effects can vary depending on women’s financial condition and social class. Brazilian women"

The author is using the example of Brazilian women to show that the effects of urban migration cannot be easily characterized. Hence option (C ) is the best answer choice.

2.
Answer C

3.
“makes it difficult for them to organize to improve their economic conditions in general."

Option (B) is a clear word justification of the above and is hence correct.

4.

“Not surprisingly, then, Latin American women in the lowest socioeconomic class differ in their opinions about the effects of urban migration on their lives."
Option (C ) is a word justification of the above excerpt. Hence correct.
_________________

Hey mate ...here is the explanation :

Refer to the following coloured part of the 1st paragraph of the passage :

While acknowledging that there are greater employment opportunities for Latin American women in cities than in the countryside, social science theorists have continued to argue that urban migration has unequivocally hurt women’s status.However, the effects of migration are more complex than these theorists presume.For example, effects can vary depending on women’s financial condition and social class.Brazilian women in the lowest socioeconomic class have relatively greater job opportunities and job security in cities than do men of the same class, although there is no compelling evidence that for these women the move to the city is a move out of poverty. Thus, these women may improve their status in relation to men but at the same time may experience no improvement in their economic standing.


Pink Font : Social Science theorist (SST) says that Urban Migration HURT women’s status.
Red Font : “HOWEVER” is the critical word here …”however” indicates that AUTHOR’s view point is different that “SST”.
And author believes (hence we also have to believe) that effect of migration is MORE complex and NOT that straight forward as the SSTs are suggesting …

Now, just try to put yourself in a conversation and imagine that you have just made a massive statement against some popular belief …what would you do …
You would probably back it up with a substantial example …right ?

So did the AUTHOR and hence the next statement started with “For example” …which was then made a specific example with the reference of BRAILIAN WOMEN…

Hence if you see Option A :
A. support an earlier assertion made by social science theorists about the effects of urban migration

it says, that author is trying to support the SST’s theory …however as explained this is NOT the case…author is infact against the theory made by SST.
Hence Option A is incorrect.


Hit Kudos if this helps…
_________________

The passage mentions that urban migration increases women's status in a very complex manner . In one particular category of women , this conclusion holds true. However, we cannot generalise the premise for all women. Option A is directly stated in 2nd or 3rd line .

Hi, Happy to elucidate my understanding of question-3,

The author mentions which of the following as a disadvantage of urban employment for Latin American women in the lowest socioeconomic group?
A. It is difficult for these women to obtain reliable, long-term employment. (Nowhere in the passage is this described as a disadvantage of urban employment for Latin American women in the lowest socioeconomic group, whereas, what mentioned is- [color=#00ffff] poor women working in urban areas actively seek to cultivate long-term employer-employee relations )[/color]
B. It is difficult for these women to organize effectively in order to obtain better wages. Bingo! The last line of the 2nd paragraph clearly says- [color=#00ffff]However, the structure of many poor women’s work-often a labor force of one in an employer’s home- makes it difficult for them to organize to improve their economic conditions in general. , and from this we can infer the option to be correct[/color]
C. It is difficult for these women to find employers who are supportive when emergencies arise. The 2nd paragraph again says that they do find employers who are supportive when emergencies arise
D. The structure of their jobs makes it difficult for these women to participate in exchange networks. 2nd para, incorrect
E. Working in urban areas makes these women more vulnerable to health problems than they would be in rural areas.Nowhere mentioned about health problems as a disadvantage.

The author of the passage would most likely react to a claim that Latin American women have not made good use of the resources available to them by

1)expressing strong disagreement

2)offering cautious dissent because of specific case studies

3)withholding judgment because of insufficient evidence

4)offering tentative support because of some circumstantial evidence

5)concurring fully with the claim

Can someone explain why the OA for this question is A. As I don't think there is any indication of strong opinions of the author in the passage (Atleast not any that I could spot :p)

Passage map: Urban migration effects on women
P1: To state a problem but caveat that problem: women's status has been affected by urban migration positively in relation to men, but its a win-lose situation
P2: To explain the caveats of this problem - forgone advantages
P3: To argue that the overall status of lower-socio economic women is hurt by urban migration

Q1 - Inference
"the effects of migration are more complex than these theorists presume" -- an example of the type of complexity is given "for example, effects vary..." and then a specific culture is referenced in support of this complexity - Brazil.

A - is incorrect because the theorists simply think migration is overall negative, but we know its a little bit more "complex" meaning there are likely some positives
B - No. The example is provided in support of the statements and the statements don't mention anything about failure to improve.
C - Correct. The examples are given to further explain the 'complexity'
D - No. The overall para discusses one effect and the examples are only given in support of earlier statements
E - No comparison is made.

Q2 - Main Idea
A - no way this is the main idea. The opinions of women aren't even taken in the passage.
B - It hasn't weakened the support systems, they just haven't had as much of the support. Trigger word here is "weaken"
C - Yes. There are a lot of negatives, but some positives to urban migration. P1 mentions this, P2 explains the caveats, P3 argues the overall negativity of migration.
D - We don't know about the relatively greater job opps of women in relation to Men
E - We don't know how much better off if at all the higher socio-eco women are in relation to lower. Incorrect

Q3 - Detail
A - Incorrect because the only thing mentioned about LT employment is that LA women actively seek it for greater support. No mention of the difficulty.
B - Correct. Last sentence of P2 mentions that it is difficult "for them to organise to improve their economic conditions" - economic conditions are improved by earning more money i.e. "better wages"
C - Similar to A - no mention of the difficulty of actually finding the more supportive employers
D - Incorrect as we aren't able to substantiate the affects of the structure of women's jobs.
E - Incorrect - not supported at all by the passage.

Q4 - Detail Inference
The author's opinion is given in the last para (P3).
A - is incorrect as it is the opposite of the opinion. "urban migration has not provided eco prosperity or upward mobility for women.."
B - This isn't supported. All we know is LA women value their networks, but we don't know how much LA women's opinions are influenced by such networks.
C - This is correct. The author concludes that "urban migration has not provided economic prosperity... etc. " overall, but before he does this he mentions some enjoy positives - access to electricity and water - and OTHERS cant stand the negatives - overcrowding/ crime-so it is clear that the importance placed on each positive/ negative varies depending on the LA women's circumstances, leading us to conclude that the LA women place differing levels of importance on positives/negatives otherwise there would be a general consensus on whether to stay/ leave
D - Incorrect, we don't really know much about the migration of higher socioeconomic classes
E - Incorrect, similar to D we don't know a lot about the migration of men.

Q5 - Detail Inference
Refer to the last sentence of P3
The author states "urban migration has not provided economic prosperity or upward mobility for women in the lowest socioeconomic class, despite their intelligent and energetic utilization of the resources available to them"

So he would disagree with the statement in the stem, clearly.
A - correct
B - He would disagree, but there are no specific case studies. The passage describes overall trends.
C - No. He would disagree
D - No. He would disagree
E - Worse than D. He would disagree.


Q6 - Detail Inference
P1 clearly states: "social science theorists have continued to argue that urban migration has unequivocally hurt women’s status"

A - This is correct as it essentially repeats what is stated.
B - is incorrect because it is the opposite of what is stated
C - women's status IS affected. Wrong
D - No. We just know that women's status is decreased. We only know that the effects of migration vary in relation to men
E - We know nothing of the marketability of women's job skills. Incorrect.

No. Where does the passage talk about upper-economic Latin American women? It doesn't.

Lower-socioeconomic women are cited to support the notion that overall urban migration is complex and hurts, not helps, the status of Latin American women.

In the last Para the author gives his argument - that "urban life has had both negative and positive impacts on women’s lives.In general, urban migration has not provided economic prosperity or upward mobility for women in the lowest socioeconomic class, despite their intelligent and energetic utilization of the resources available to them.

This is literally the only piece of info. in the passage that allows us to make any reasonable comment on Latin American women's use of resources.

For Q6

While acknowledging that there are greater employment opportunities for Latin American women in cities than in the countryside, social science theorists have continued to argue that urban migration has unequivocally hurt women’s status.

Now dig in the information given above.
Social theorist acknowledging X and arguing for Y simultaneously. Now question ask what theorists believe.
Is it like what theorist are arguing is more close to what they believe than what they acknowledge?
Please explain.

For example I am acknowledging something X but I am arguing for Y.
Probably I believe in Y much more than X.

Theorists doesn't believe that "Urban migration increases women's status in comparison to that of men of the same class." It was given in example to show that the effects are more complex.

Whereas "theorists have continued to argue that urban migration has unequivocally hurt women’s status." suggest that urban migration has undoubtly hurt the women's status. So we can infer that they had higher status in country side.