Although the industrial union organizations that emerged under the banner of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in the 1930s...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Although the industrial union organizations that emerged under the banner of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in the 1930s and 1940s embraced the principles of nondiscrimination and inclusion, the role of women within unions reflected the prevailing gender ideology of the period. Elizabeth Faue's study of the labor movement in Minneapolis argues that women were marginalized by union bureaucratization and by the separation of unions from the community politics from which industrial unionism had emerged. Faue stresses the importance of women's contribution to the development of unions at the community level, contributions that made women's ultimate fate within the city's labor movement all the more poignant: as unions reached the peak of their strength in the 1940s, the community base that had made their success possible and to which women's contributions were so vital became increasingly irrelevant to unions' institutional life.
In her study of CIO industrial unions from the 1930s to the 1970s, Nancy F. Gabin also acknowledges the pervasive male domination in the unions, but maintains that women workers were able to create a political space within some unions to advance their interests as women. Gabin shows that, despite the unions' tendency to marginalize women's issues, working women's demands were a constant undercurrent within the union, and she stresses the links between the unions' women activists and the wave of feminism that emerged in the 1960s.
According to the passage, Faue's study and Gabin's study agree in that both
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Although the industrial union organizations that emerged under the banner of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) in the 1930s and 1940s embraced the principles of nondiscrimination and inclusion, the role of women within unions reflected the prevailing gender ideology of the period. | What it says: Labor unions in the 1930s-40s officially supported equality, but still treated women according to traditional gender roles of that time. What it does: Sets up the central contradiction/tension that the passage will explore Source/Type: Author's factual claim establishing historical context Connection to Previous Sentences: First sentence - establishes the foundation Visualization: Think of it like a company today that has an official diversity policy but still pays women 80 cents for every dollar men make - there's a gap between stated values and actual practice. What We Know So Far: There was a disconnect between unions' official equality policies and how they actually treated women What We Don't Know Yet: Specific examples of this treatment, different researchers' perspectives, what exactly happened to women in unions |
| Elizabeth Faue's study of the labor movement in Minneapolis argues that women were marginalized by union bureaucratization and by the separation of unions from the community politics from which industrial unionism had emerged. | What it says: Researcher Elizabeth Faue studied Minneapolis and found two reasons women got pushed aside: unions became more bureaucratic, and unions disconnected from community involvement. What it does: Introduces the first expert perspective with specific explanations for the problem Source/Type: Academic researcher's argument/claim Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 1 by providing concrete evidence and explanations for the contradiction mentioned earlier. We're not learning something new - we're getting the "why" behind what was already established. Visualization: Imagine a grassroots organization that starts in coffee shops and community centers (women included), then moves to corporate offices with formal procedures (women get left behind). Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here - this isn't adding complexity, it's explaining what we already knew was true. |
| Faue stresses the importance of women's contribution to the development of unions at the community level, contributions that made women's ultimate fate within the city's labor movement all the more poignant: as unions reached the peak of their strength in the 1940s, the community base that had made their success possible and to which women's contributions were so vital became increasingly irrelevant to unions' institutional life. | What it says: Women were crucial in building unions at the grassroots level, which makes it especially sad that unions abandoned this community focus (where women thrived) when unions became most powerful. What it does: Elaborates on Faue's argument by explaining the irony/tragedy of the situation Source/Type: Continuation of Faue's research findings Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly continues and deepens Faue's explanation from sentence 2. The "community politics" mentioned before is now explained as where women were most valuable. Visualization: Think of women helping build a successful restaurant from a food truck (community level) to a chain, then being pushed out once it becomes corporate, even though their work made the success possible. Reading Strategy Insight: The author is giving us more detail about the same story, not introducing a completely different argument. |
| In her study of CIO industrial unions from the 1930s to the 1970s, Nancy F. Gabin also acknowledges the pervasive male domination in the unions, but maintains that women workers were able to create a political space within some unions to advance their interests as women. | What it says: A second researcher, Nancy Gabin, agrees that men dominated unions BUT argues that some women still managed to carve out space to advocate for women's issues. What it does: Introduces a second expert perspective that partially agrees but offers a different angle Source/Type: Second academic researcher's argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This connects by providing a different researcher's view on the SAME basic problem established in sentence 1. Gabin agrees with the male domination part (confirming what we already knew) but adds that women had some agency. Visualization: If Faue showed us women being completely pushed out of a building, Gabin is showing us that some women managed to claim small offices within that same building. What We Know So Far: Both researchers agree men dominated unions, but they differ on how much women could still influence things Reading Strategy Insight: "But" signals a contrast, but it's a partial contrast - not complete disagreement. |
| Gabin shows that, despite the unions' tendency to marginalize women's issues, working women's demands were a constant undercurrent within the union, and she stresses the links between the unions' women activists and the wave of feminism that emerged in the 1960s. | What it says: Gabin found that even though unions tried to sideline women's concerns, women kept pushing their agenda behind the scenes, and these union women connected to the feminist movement of the 1960s. What it does: Provides specific evidence and extends Gabin's argument forward in time Source/Type: Continuation of Gabin's research findings Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds directly on sentence 4 by giving concrete examples of how women "created political space." The "constant undercurrent" explains what "advancing their interests" actually looked like. Visualization: Picture women's issues like an underground river that kept flowing even when the surface (official union policies) ignored it, eventually connecting to the larger feminist river of the 1960s. What We Know So Far: • Unions officially supported equality but marginalized women (everyone agrees) • Faue: Women got pushed out as unions bureaucratized • Gabin: Women maintained some influence underground and connected to later feminism Reading Strategy Insight: This passage has been about ONE central issue the whole time - how women fared in unions. Everything connects back to that core question. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To compare and contrast two different scholarly perspectives on how women were treated within labor unions during the mid-20th century.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their comparison by presenting two researchers' views on the same historical issue:
- First, the author sets up the central problem by explaining that unions officially supported equality but still marginalized women in practice.
- Next, the author presents Elizabeth Faue's research, which argues that women were pushed out as unions became more bureaucratic and moved away from community-based organizing where women had been most valuable.
- Then, the author introduces Nancy Gabin's perspective, which agrees that men dominated unions but argues that women still managed to maintain some influence behind the scenes.
- Finally, the author explains how Gabin's research shows that women's underground activism in unions connected to the broader feminist movement of the 1960s.
Main Point:
While both scholars agree that women faced discrimination in labor unions despite official equality policies, they disagree about how much influence women actually maintained - one sees women as largely pushed out, while the other sees them as quietly persistent and eventually connected to later feminist movements.
1. Question Analysis:
The question asks us to identify what Faue's study and Gabin's study agree on. This is a comparison question that requires us to find common ground between two different scholarly perspectives presented in the passage.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our analysis, we know that:
- Both researchers studied the same historical issue - how women were treated in labor unions
- The passage established that "the role of women within unions reflected the prevailing gender ideology of the period" - meaning women faced discrimination despite official equality policies
- Faue argued that "women were marginalized by union bureaucratization"
- Gabin "acknowledges the pervasive male domination in the unions" and notes "unions' tendency to marginalize women's issues"
The key insight from our passage analysis is that while the researchers differ on how much influence women maintained, they both establish the same foundational premise about male domination and women's subordinate position.
Prethinking:
Based on the passage structure, both studies agree on the core problem - that women were in a subordinate or marginalized position within unions. Faue shows this through bureaucratization pushing women out, while Gabin shows this through acknowledging "pervasive male domination" and unions' tendency to "marginalize women's issues." Their difference lies not in whether women were subordinated, but in how much agency women retained despite that subordination.
Why It's Wrong:
• Neither study attributes women's inclusion specifically to CIO policies
• The passage states CIO embraced "principles of nondiscrimination" but then immediately shows how women were still marginalized
• Both studies focus on how women were marginalized despite official policies, not on how CIO policies included them
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did the opening sentence about CIO's nondiscrimination principles make this seem correct?
→ Remember that the passage uses "Although" to set up a contrast - the CIO claimed to support inclusion, but the studies show women were still marginalized
1. Isn't mentioning CIO policies the same as attributing inclusion to them?
→ The studies examine what actually happened to women, not what policies claimed to do
Why It's Wrong:
• Only Faue emphasizes the importance of unions at the community level
• Gabin's study focuses on women creating "political space within some unions" and connections to feminism
• Gabin doesn't discuss community-level union work as important
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't Faue's focus on community level mean both studies agree on this?
→ Only one study discussing something doesn't mean both studies agree on it
1. Could "political space within unions" be the same as community-level work?
→ The passage distinguishes between community politics (Faue's focus) and internal union politics (Gabin's focus)
Why It's Wrong:
• Only Faue argues that women played important roles in establishing unions
• Faue discusses women's "contribution to the development of unions at the community level"
• Gabin focuses on what women did within already-established unions, not their role in establishing them
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't Gabin's mention of women activists show they helped establish unions?
→ Gabin discusses women working within existing union structures, not establishing the unions themselves
1. Isn't creating "political space" the same as establishing organizations?
→ Creating space within existing institutions is different from establishing those institutions
Why It's Right:
• Faue argues that "women were marginalized by union bureaucratization"
• Gabin "acknowledges the pervasive male domination in the unions" and notes "unions' tendency to marginalize women's issues"
• Both studies establish that despite official equality policies, women occupied a subordinate position within union hierarchies
• This agreement on women's subordinate role forms the foundation that both researchers build upon
Key Evidence: "Elizabeth Faue's study... argues that women were marginalized" and "Nancy F. Gabin also acknowledges the pervasive male domination in the unions"
Why It's Wrong:
• Neither study suggests women's interests were incompatible with unions in general
• Gabin actually shows how women's demands were "a constant undercurrent within the union"
• Both studies examine how women worked within union frameworks, not against them
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't marginalization mean women's interests were incompatible with unions?
→ Marginalization means women were pushed aside by dominant groups, not that their interests were fundamentally incompatible
1. If unions marginalized women's issues, doesn't that show incompatibility?
→ The passage shows this was due to "prevailing gender ideology," not inherent incompatibility between women's interests and union goals