During the past fifteen years, historians of Mexican American, or Chicano, experience have contributed significantly to understanding the early twenti...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
During the past fifteen years, historians of Mexican American, or Chicano, experience have contributed significantly to understanding the early twentieth-century history of the second largest ethnic minority group in the United States. Influenced greatly by recent trends in the nation's historiography—particularly the "new" social, labor, and urban histories—historians focusing on the Mexican American experience have begun to uncover a past long ignored by academics. Two recent books, Ricardo Romo's East Los Angeles and Mario Garcia's Desert Immigrants, make important contributions to Mexican American history.
Romo's study documents the impact of urbanization from 1900 to 1930 on the Mexican American pueblo society that had existed in the historical downtown plaza area of Los Angeles, California, since the mid-nineteenth century, and on the development, after 1900, of new immigrant barrios (neighborhoods) east of the Los Angeles River. He shows convincingly how Mexicans were excluded from the jobs that would have provided them some avenue for upward occupational mobility after the First World War. Romo also effectively analyzes the process of migration, resettlement, and adjustment of Los Angeles's Mexican immigrants, most of whom left Mexico after 1910 because of the Mexican Revolution. During this period a record number of Mexican American immigrants came to the United States, particularly to Los Angeles, which had the largest Mexican American population in the United States as early as 1930.
Overall, East Los Angeles bridges a critical gap in early twentieth-century Mexican American urban history. Garcia's Desert Immigrants, focusing primarily on the years 1900 to 1920 in El Paso, Texas, also examines the formation of a Mexican American urban community. Well researched and engaging, Garcia's study demonstrates that Mexican immigrants played an essential role in the dramatic expansion of the local economy by becoming the backbone of the labor market. Garcia skillfully portrays the ethnic and class factors in El Paso society that created significant problems for early Mexican immigrants and that were overcome only as the Mexican American community in El Paso became more firmly established after 1920. Desert Immigrants also examines the special role that El Paso, as a border city, played in the political and cultural life of local Mexicans.
While advancing our understanding of Mexican American urban history, the books do not raise the question of whether the history of these two urban communities provides a general understanding of Chicano life in American cities. Neither study offers useful comparisons to other southwestern communities, nor does either adequately compare the urban experiences of Mexican and other immigrant groups. Did El Paso's proximity to the border and its function as a labor depot for Mexican workers in the United States make its historical trajectory significantly different from that of other Mexican American urban centers? Is East Los Angeles's meteoric rise as a mecca for Mexican immigration comparable to developments in San Antonio, Texas—the second largest urban community of Mexicans—during the first decades of the twentieth century?
In the passage, the author is primarily interested in
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| During the past fifteen years, historians of Mexican American, or Chicano, experience have contributed significantly to understanding the early twentieth-century history of the second largest ethnic minority group in the United States. | What it says: Historians have made important progress studying Mexican American history from the early 1900s. What it does: Opens the passage by establishing the topic and importance of recent scholarship. Source/Type: Author's factual statement about scholarly trends. Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the opening - no previous connections. Visualization: Timeline: Last 15 years → Growing research on Mexican Americans (2nd largest ethnic group) Reading Strategy Insight: This is a classic RC opener - broad topic introduction. Expect specifics and examples to follow. What We Know So Far: Mexican American history research has grown recently What We Don't Know Yet: What specific contributions? Which historians? What discoveries? |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To evaluate recent scholarship on Mexican American urban history by examining two important books and then pointing out what these studies are missing.
3. Question Analysis:
The question asks us to identify what the author is "primarily interested in" - this is asking for the main purpose or central focus of the entire passage. We need to determine what the author's overarching goal is throughout the text.
Why It's Wrong:
- The author actually praises academic historiography for recent improvements in Mexican American studies
- The passage states historians have "contributed significantly" and "begun to uncover a past long ignored"
- The criticism is limited and constructive, focusing on missing comparative analysis rather than condemning the field
Why It's Right:
- The entire passage structure revolves around evaluating two specific urban history studies
- The author systematically examines what each book contributes and what it lacks
- Both positive assessment ("bridges a critical gap," "well researched and engaging") and limitations (missing comparative analysis) are presented
- The focus is specifically on "recent studies" rather than historical methods or broad historical importance
Why It's Wrong:
- The author mentions that historians were "influenced greatly by recent trends" but doesn't compare different methodological approaches
- The focus is on evaluating the results and scope of studies, not analyzing how different historical methods work
- No competing methodologies are presented or contrasted
Why It's Wrong:
- While Chicano history is the subject matter, the author isn't describing its development as a field
- The passage focuses on evaluating specific recent contributions rather than tracing how Chicano history evolved
- The emphasis is on assessing current scholarship, not chronicling historical development
Why It's Wrong:
- The cities (Los Angeles and El Paso) are case studies, not the primary focus
- The author's interest is in the scholarship about these cities, not the cities' historical importance themselves
- The passage evaluates how well the books studied these cities rather than explaining why the cities matter historically