Question 5 (+ full passage breakdown)
RandomUuser wrote:
It can be inferred from the passage that the author most probably thinks that giving the disenfranchised “a piece of the action” is
(A) a compassionate, if misdirected, legislative measure
(B) an example of Americans’ resistance to profound social change
(C) an innovative program for genuine social reform
(D) a monument to the efforts of industrial reformers
(E) a surprisingly “Old World” remedy for social ills
could someone explain this question please, how is the answer B
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
Quote:
(A) a compassionate, if misdirected, legislative measure
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.
Quote:
(B) an example of Americans’ resistance to profound social change
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).
Quote:
(C) an innovative program for genuine social reform
Uh, no. The whole point is that this is an example of failed reform. Eliminate (C).
Quote:
(D) a monument to the efforts of industrial reformers
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.
Quote:
(E) a surprisingly “Old World” remedy for social ills
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!
- Why is "DID" mentioned here? I am confused whether "DID" is referring to old world times.
Please clarify.
The nonstarters were considered the ones who wanted stability, a strong referee to give them some position
“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
- 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.
- 2nd, it should talk about the same race which the passage was talking about in para 2, right? - Reason: