Woodrow Wilson was referring to the liberal idea of the

GMATNinja

What is the difference between "Primary Purpose" (as asked in 1st question) and "Main Point" (as asked in 9th question) of the passage ?
Kindly explain in the context of this passage. How to differentiate between the two ?

Can anyone please help in explaining how the author is criticizing the American Idea of continuous change? Which lines in the passage actually signify that the author is criticizing? Where is that mentioned that the American idea is flawed?

No sarcasm at all,Icandy
you are the Guru in RC.
I am just learning the tricks

Are you asking abt this one?which I got right too

6. Which of the following metaphors could the author most appropriately use to summarize his own assessment of the American economic system (lines 35-60)?

(A) A windmill
(B) A waterfall
(C) A treadmill
(D) A gyroscope
(E) A bellows

I opted for treadmill because "its in continuously running" mode resembling "American economic system "
check the last line--#60
"There is no honor but in the Wonderland race we must all run, all trying to win, none winning in the end (for there is no end)."
sent PM to you,pls check,icandy

Can anyone explain Q5's solution please?

Hi VeritasKarishma GMATNinja CrackVerbalGMAT

How we can say treadmill is continuously running,it also stops.Why "waterfall" cannot be considered continuously running item here as it keeps on flowing/running unless its source of water gets dried up.

There is no honor but in the Wonderland race we must all run, all trying to win, none winning in the end (for there is no end).

GMATNinja, can you please help me to identify where in the passage answer to the third question in the q8 has been provided? (I selected C for q8 originally. However, I don't have a clear understanding where in the passage answer to the third question in the q8 has been provided).

8. The passage contains information that would answer which of the following questions?
III. Has economic policy in the United States tended to reward independent action?

Question 5 (+ full passage breakdown)

As with most questions, this one relies on a strong grasp of the passage’s overall purpose. So although this question is about one particular line, let’s begin by thinking about the purpose of each paragraph, and how it relates to the quote about “a piece of the action.” (Side note: feel free to check out our Ultimate RC Guide for Beginners for more on reading for purpose).

Let's take a look at the first paragraph:

• America sees its economic system as based on opportunity and mobility.
• America sees the "Old World" system as based on property and stability.

Now the second paragraph:

• America sees "Haves" as "agents of change."
• America sees "Have-Nots" as wanting "stability, a strong referee to give them some position in the race."

And finally the third paragraph:

• Reform in America has been ineffective (or "sterile") because its efforts at reform are limited by its view of its economic system as a "race".
• One example of a "sterile" or ineffective reforms is including more people in the race, so they get a "piece of the action."
• America would never "call off the race," meaning it would never enact a more extreme reform.
• Because of America's views of its economic system, the race never ends and no one wins.

So basically, the statement about giving the disenfranchised a "piece of the action" is an example of an ineffective reform which America might enact. Let's now take a look at the question itself.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author most probably thinks that giving the disenfranchised “a piece of the action” is

The idea of being misdirected catches my eye, since we know the author thinks giving the disenfranchised “a piece of the action” is an example America’s failed effort at reform. But is it a legislative measure? Well, we don’t get any specifics about these reforms, so we have no basis to consider them “legislative measures.” But is it compassionate? I doubt it. The author clearly has some negative views of America’s economic system (“There is no honor in the Wonderland race we must all run…”), so compassionate doesn’t fit very well.

(A) is out.


Right off the bat, I like that this identifies the statement as an example. Based on our reading, the purpose of the statement “a piece of the action” was to give an example of why America’s efforts at reform are sterile, so that makes sense. What about “resistance to profound social change?” Well, the passage says these efforts at reform are like allowing more people to compete in the race, as opposed to calling off the race. In other words, they are small efforts at reform that ultimately fail. And because these reforms fail, America is unable to produce “profound social change.”

Okay, so far so good. But what about the word profound? Well, America is willing to allow more competitors in the race, but not to call off the race. So while it makes small changes, it is unable to make large changes. So the word profound makes sense as well.

Let’s hold on to (B).


Uh, no. The whole point is that this is an example of failed reform. Eliminate (C).


Again, the quote is an example of how America’s views of its economic system cause it to fail at social reform. So it’s not a positive testament (i.e. a monument) to reformers of any kind. (D) is out.


Okay, a “remedy for social ills” catches my ear. This is an example of a reform to America’s economic system, which is arguably a “remedy for social ills,” so that isn’t terrible.

But is it an “Old World” remedy? Well, the quote was an example of America’s effort at reform. And if we go back to the first paragraph, we see that America’s views of its economic system (mobility and opportunity) were contrasted to the Old World views (stability and property). So really, this answer choice has it backwards. It’s not an Old World remedy, but an example of a typical American remedy. Eliminate (E).

So we are left with (B) as the answer to question 5.

Hope that helps!

(1)
Earlier In the 1st para, it is mentioned that-
“Old World” categories of settled possessiveness versus unsettling deprivation
- According to this “Old World” values were based on property

Then it was mentioned later in the same para-
We did not base our system on property - Why is "DID" mentioned here? I am confused whether "DID" is referring to old world times.
- According to this “Old World” values were NOT based on property
Please clarify.

(2)
In the 2nd para, it is mentioned that-
The nonstarters were considered the ones who wanted stability, a strong referee to give them some position in the race - The race mentioned here is referring to the race of change

Then In the 3rd para, it is mentioned that-
“Reform” in America has been sterile because it can imagine no change except through the extension of this metaphor of a race, wider inclusion of competitors, “a piece of the action,” as it were, for the disenfranchised. There is no attempt to call off the race
- First of all, the main point of the passage was there should be the race of change and here it is talking about calling off the race. Why?
- 2nd, it should talk about the same race which the passage was talking about in para 2, right? - Reason: "The Race" mentioned both places.

Hi everyone, I'm rather new to GMAT Club.

Got 8/9 correct but felt my performance was almost completely luck-based (maybe a bit of impostor syndrome there)

I think I focused on the meaning of each paragraph, on the WHY, and I think I managed to grasp it quite successfully, but on some questions I felt lost and had to guess 50/50 since POE could not always get me to a definitive answer.

GMATNinja could you please explain why the Answer of Q9 is D and not B?
Thank you so much for the passage analysis above, it helped me make sense of what I could not understand while reading.

(B) The absence of a status quo ante has undermined United States economic structure.

(D) The myth of the American free enterprise system is seriously flawed.

Question 5 (+ full passage breakdown)

As with most questions, this one relies on a strong grasp of the passage’s overall purpose. So although this question is about one particular line, let’s begin by thinking about the purpose of each paragraph, and how it relates to the quote about “a piece of the action.” (Side note: feel free to check out our Ultimate RC Guide for Beginners for more on reading for purpose).

Let's take a look at the first paragraph:

• America sees its economic system as based on opportunity and mobility.
• America sees the "Old World" system as based on property and stability.

Now the second paragraph:

• America sees "Haves" as "agents of change."
• America sees "Have-Nots" as wanting "stability, a strong referee to give them some position in the race."

And finally the third paragraph:

• Reform in America has been ineffective (or "sterile") because its efforts at reform are limited by its view of its economic system as a "race".
• One example of a "sterile" or ineffective reforms is including more people in the race, so they get a "piece of the action."
• America would never "call off the race," meaning it would never enact a more extreme reform.
• Because of America's views of its economic system, the race never ends and no one wins.

So basically, the statement about giving the disenfranchised a "piece of the action" is an example of an ineffective reform which America might enact. Let's now take a look at the question itself.

It can be inferred from the passage that the author most probably thinks that giving the disenfranchised “a piece of the action” is

The idea of being misdirected catches my eye, since we know the author thinks giving the disenfranchised “a piece of the action” is an example America’s failed effort at reform. But is it a legislative measure? Well, we don’t get any specifics about these reforms, so we have no basis to consider them “legislative measures.” But is it compassionate? I doubt it. The author clearly has some negative views of America’s economic system (“There is no honor in the Wonderland race we must all run…”), so compassionate doesn’t fit very well.

(A) is out.


Right off the bat, I like that this identifies the statement as an example. Based on our reading, the purpose of the statement “a piece of the action” was to give an example of why America’s efforts at reform are sterile, so that makes sense. What about “resistance to profound social change?” Well, the passage says these efforts at reform are like allowing more people to compete in the race, as opposed to calling off the race. In other words, they are small efforts at reform that ultimately fail. And because these reforms fail, America is unable to produce “profound social change.”

Okay, so far so good. But what about the word profound? Well, America is willing to allow more competitors in the race, but not to call off the race. So while it makes small changes, it is unable to make large changes. So the word profound makes sense as well.

Let’s hold on to (B).


Uh, no. The whole point is that this is an example of failed reform. Eliminate (C).


Again, the quote is an example of how America’s views of its economic system cause it to fail at social reform. So it’s not a positive testament (i.e. a monument) to reformers of any kind. (D) is out.


Okay, a “remedy for social ills” catches my ear. This is an example of a reform to America’s economic system, which is arguably a “remedy for social ills,” so that isn’t terrible.

But is it an “Old World” remedy? Well, the quote was an example of America’s effort at reform. And if we go back to the first paragraph, we see that America’s views of its economic system (mobility and opportunity) were contrasted to the Old World views (stability and property). So really, this answer choice has it backwards. It’s not an Old World remedy, but an example of a typical American remedy. Eliminate (E).

So we are left with (B) as the answer to question 5.

Hope that helps!

i am facing problem in understanding this comprehension I guess because I just started doing this so if anyone can help ?

­GMATNinja , You wrote  that "Okay, so far so good. But what about the word profound? Well, America is willing to allow more competitors in the race, but not to call off the race. So while it makes small changes, it is unable to make large changes. So the word profound makes sense as well." .

Please help me understand which sentence in the passage makes you  say that "America was able to make small changes". GMATNinja KarishmaB