Acting on the recommendation of a British government committee investigating the high incidence in white lead factories of illness among...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Acting on the recommendation of a British government committee investigating the high incidence in white lead factories of illness among employees, most of whom were women, the Home Secretary proposed in 1895 that Parliament enact legislation that would prohibit women from holding most jobs in white lead factories. Although the Women's Industrial Defense Committee (WIDC), formed in 1892 in response to earlier legislative attempts to restrict women's labor, did not discount the white lead trade's potential health dangers, it opposed the proposal, viewing it as yet another instance of limiting women's work opportunities. Also opposing the proposal was the Society for Promoting the Employment of Women (SPEW), which attempted to challenge it by investigating the causes of illness in white lead factories. SPEW contended, and WIDC concurred, that controllable conditions in such factories were responsible for the development of lead poisoning. SPEW provided convincing evidence that lead poisoning could be avoided if workers were careful and clean and if already extant workplace safety regulations were stringently enforced. However, the Women's Trade Union League (WTUL), which had ceased in the late 1880s to oppose restrictions on women's labor, supported the eventually enacted proposal, in part because safety regulations were generally not being enforced in white lead factories, where there were no unions and little prospect of any to pressure employers to comply with safety regulations.
The passage suggests that WIDC differed from WTUL in which of the following ways?
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Acting on the recommendation of a British government committee investigating the high incidence in white lead factories of illness among employees, most of who were women, the Home Secretary proposed in 1895 that Parliament enact legislation that would prohibit women from holding most jobs in white lead factories. | What it says: A British government official wanted to ban women from working in white lead factories because workers were getting sick. What it does: Introduces the main situation/conflict that will drive the entire passage Source/Type: Historical fact - describes an actual government proposal Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous information to connect to Visualization: Government Committee → Investigates → Finds: 80% of sick workers are women → Recommends → Home Secretary proposes ban Reading Strategy Insight: This sentence sets up what will likely be responses FOR and AGAINST this proposal. Expect the rest of the passage to show different groups' reactions. What We Know So Far: Government wants to ban women from white lead factory jobs due to health concerns What We Don't Know Yet: How different groups responded to this proposal |
| Although the Women's Industrial Defense Committee (WIDC), formed in 1892 in response to earlier legislative attempts to restrict women's labor, did not discount the white lead trade's potential health dangers, it opposed the proposal, viewing it as yet another instance of limiting women's work opportunities. | What it says: The WIDC group said "Yes, the work is dangerous, but no, we don't want this ban because it limits women's job options." What it does: Introduces the first opposition group and their reasoning Source/Type: Historical fact about WIDC's position Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 1 told us: Government proposed a ban - NOW Sentence 2: Shows us the first group that opposed this ban - This is our first reaction to the government proposal Visualization: Government Proposal (Ban women) ← OPPOSED BY ← WIDC WIDC's logic: Acknowledge danger BUT prioritize job opportunities Reading Strategy Insight: The word "Although" signals complexity, but notice how the sentence actually gives us a simple two-part position: they agree about danger but disagree about the solution. What We Know So Far: Government wants ban, WIDC opposes it despite agreeing about health risks What We Don't Know Yet: Whether other groups also opposed or if any supported the proposal |
| Also opposing the proposal was the Society for Promoting the Employment of Women (SPEW), which attempted to challenge it by investigating the causes of illness in white lead factories. | What it says: Another women's group (SPEW) also opposed the ban and decided to research what was actually causing the illnesses. What it does: Introduces a second opposition group and shows they took action to investigate Source/Type: Historical fact about SPEW's position and actions Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 1: Government proposed ban - Sentence 2: WIDC opposed ban - NOW Sentence 3: SPEW also opposed ban - this reinforces that women's groups were against the proposal - This is building a pattern of opposition Visualization: Government Proposal (Ban women) ↑ OPPOSED BY ↑ WIDC + SPEW SPEW's approach: Investigation to find real causes Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here - this is NOT new complexity. We're seeing a second example of the same basic pattern: women's groups opposing the ban. What We Know So Far: Government wants ban, two women's groups (WIDC and SPEW) both oppose it What We Don't Know Yet: What SPEW found in their investigation, if anyone supported the proposal |
| SPEW contended, and WIDC concurred, that controllable conditions in such factories were responsible for the development of lead poisoning. | What it says: Both SPEW and WIDC agreed that the problem was fixable factory conditions, not the work itself. What it does: Reveals the findings/conclusion that both opposition groups shared Source/Type: The organizations' claims based on SPEW's investigation Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 3 told us: SPEW investigated the causes - NOW Sentence 4: Gives us their conclusion AND shows both groups agreed - This explains WHY both groups opposed the ban - they found an alternative explanation Visualization: Problem: Workers getting sick Government's solution: Ban women SPEW + WIDC's solution: Fix factory conditions Key insight: Problem = conditions, not the work itself Reading Strategy Insight: This sentence SIMPLIFIES the opposition's position - instead of two separate groups with potentially different reasons, we now see they had the same basic argument. What We Know So Far: Two women's groups oppose the ban and agree the real problem is poor factory conditions What We Don't Know Yet: Specific evidence for this claim, whether anyone supported the ban |
| SPEW provided convincing evidence that lead poisoning could be avoided if workers were careful and clean and if already extant workplace safety regulations were stringently enforced. | What it says: SPEW proved that lead poisoning was preventable through worker care and enforcing existing safety rules. What it does: Provides the specific evidence and solution that supported the opposition groups' position Source/Type: SPEW's research findings and recommendations Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 4 told us: Both groups blamed factory conditions - NOW Sentence 5: Gives us the specific evidence and solution - This is NOT new information - it's the detailed version of what we just learned Visualization: SPEW's Solution to Prevent Lead Poisoning: Step 1: Workers be careful and clean Step 2: Enforce existing safety regulations Result: No need to ban women from jobs Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is elaboration, not new complexity. The author is helping us understand the opposition's argument more completely. What We Know So Far: Opposition groups have evidence-based alternative to the ban - better safety practices What We Don't Know Yet: Whether this convinced the government, if anyone supported the original ban |
| However, the Women's Trade Union League (WTUL), which had ceased in the late 1880s to oppose restrictions on women's labor, supported the eventually enacted proposal, in part because safety regulations were generally not being enforced in white lead factories, where there were no unions (and little prospect of any) to pressure employers to comply with safety regulations. | What it says: A third women's group (WTUL) actually supported the ban because they didn't think the safety regulations would ever be enforced since there were no unions to pressure employers. What it does: Introduces the opposing viewpoint and reveals the outcome (the proposal was enacted) Source/Type: Historical fact about WTUL's position and the final legislative outcome Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentences 2-5 told us: Two women's groups opposed ban, had solution via safety enforcement - NOW Sentence 6: Shows a women's group that SUPPORTED the ban - The word "However" signals this contrast - Also reveals the ban was "eventually enacted" Visualization: The Debate: AGAINST Ban: WIDC + SPEW ("Fix conditions!") FOR Ban: WTUL ("Conditions won't actually be fixed") Winner: WTUL's side - proposal became law Practical Reality Check: SPEW's solution: Enforce safety regulations WTUL's concern: No unions = no enforcement = continued danger Reading Strategy Insight: This completes the picture by showing us there wasn't unanimous opposition among women's groups. The WTUL represents a practical/realistic perspective on whether the "ideal" solution would actually work. What We Know So Far: Three women's groups had two different approaches - fix conditions vs. accept ban - and the ban ultimately passed |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain how different women's groups responded to a government proposal to ban women from white lead factory jobs, showing that even groups with similar goals can disagree on solutions.
Summary of Passage Structure:
In this passage, the author walks us through a historical debate by showing us different perspectives on the same problem:
- First, the author introduces the government's proposed solution - banning women from dangerous white lead factory jobs to protect their health.
- Next, the author shows how two women's groups (WIDC and SPEW) opposed this ban, arguing that the real problem was poor factory conditions that could be fixed.
- Then, the author explains how these groups provided evidence that better safety practices and enforcing existing rules could solve the health problems without taking away jobs.
- Finally, the author reveals that a third women's group (WTUL) actually supported the ban because they believed the safety improvements would never realistically happen, and notes that the ban ultimately became law.
Main Point:
Even when women's organizations agreed that factory work was dangerous, they disagreed about whether to accept job restrictions or fight for better working conditions, with the more practical group winning out because they recognized that ideal solutions don't always work in the real world.
Question Analysis:
The question asks us to identify how WIDC differed from WTUL - essentially asking us to compare and contrast these two women's organizations based on the information provided in the passage.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we identified several key points about these organizations:
- WIDC's position: Formed in 1892 to respond to legislative attempts to restrict women's labor, opposed the 1895 proposal, believed factory conditions could be controlled to prevent lead poisoning
- WTUL's position: Had "ceased in the late 1880s to oppose restrictions on women's labor," supported the 1895 proposal because they didn't believe safety regulations would be enforced
- Timeline difference: The passage specifically notes that WTUL stopped opposing labor restrictions in the late 1880s, while WIDC was still actively opposing such restrictions in the 1890s
- Fundamental disagreement: Both groups cared about women's welfare but had opposite approaches to achieving it
Prethinking:
Based on our analysis, the most significant difference between these organizations appears to be their timing and approach to opposing labor restrictions. The passage specifically tells us that WTUL had "ceased in the late 1880s to oppose restrictions on women's labor" while WIDC was formed in 1892 specifically "in response to earlier legislative attempts to restrict women's labor" and continued opposing such restrictions into 1895. This suggests a fundamental shift in strategy and timing between the two organizations.
Why It's Wrong:
- Both organizations actually agreed that existing safety regulations could work if properly enforced
- WTUL supported the ban not because they thought regulations needed strengthening, but because they believed existing regulations wouldn't be enforced at all
- The passage shows WTUL's concern was about enforcement, not adequacy of the regulations themselves
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did WTUL think the safety regulations themselves were inadequate?
→ No, they thought the problem was lack of enforcement due to absence of unions, not inadequate regulations - Were the organizations debating the strength of safety rules?
→ No, they were debating whether existing rules would actually be followed in practice
Why It's Wrong:
- This misrepresents both organizations' positions on unions
- WTUL's position was that unions were absent from white lead factories and unlikely to form, not that unions couldn't succeed generally
- The passage doesn't suggest WIDC had any specific belief about unions' potential success
Common Student Mistakes:
- Was the debate about whether unions could be effective?
→ No, it was about whether unions existed or could realistically be formed in white lead factories specifically - Did WIDC express optimism about union formation?
→ The passage doesn't indicate WIDC discussed unions at all in their reasoning
Why It's Wrong:
- Both organizations actually agreed that lead poisoning could be avoided through proper conditions and safety enforcement
- WTUL supported the ban not because they thought poisoning was unavoidable, but because they believed the necessary safety measures wouldn't be implemented
- This choice confuses WTUL's practical concerns about implementation with their beliefs about theoretical possibility
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did WTUL think lead poisoning was impossible to prevent?
→ No, they thought it was preventable in theory but wouldn't be prevented in practice due to lack of enforcement - Were they debating whether safety was theoretically achievable?
→ No, they were debating whether safety would realistically be achieved given the workplace conditions
Why It's Wrong:
- This mischaracterizes both organizations' primary concerns during the white lead factory debate
- WIDC was concerned with preserving women's work opportunities, not specifically addressing health conditions
- WTUL was focused on the specific white lead factory situation, not improving conditions in all factory types
Common Student Mistakes:
- Was WIDC primarily focused on health issues?
→ No, they acknowledged health dangers but prioritized protecting women's job opportunities - Was WTUL concerned with broad factory reform?
→ The passage only discusses their position on the specific white lead factory legislation
Why It's Right:
- The passage explicitly states that WTUL \"had ceased in the late 1880s to oppose restrictions on women's labor\"
- WIDC was formed in 1892 specifically \"in response to earlier legislative attempts to restrict women's labor\" and was actively opposing such restrictions in 1895
- This shows a clear timeline difference: WTUL stopped opposing labor restrictions before WIDC was even formed
Key Evidence: \"However, the Women's Trade Union League (WTUL), which had ceased in the late 1880s to oppose restrictions on women's labor, supported the eventually enacted proposal\" - this directly contrasts with WIDC's active opposition to labor restrictions during the 1890s.