In 1860 in the United States, of all employees, only state judges in some states were forced to retire because...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Mock
...
...
Post a Query
In 1860 in the United States, of all employees, only state judges in some states were forced to retire because of advancing age. Although the 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary lists the word "retirement" in the sense of ceasing work, it does not suggest any special applicability to older people. Unencumbered by laws requiring that they cease work, older people in the early- and mid-nineteenth-century United States apparently labored until they chose to stop.
Some explain this absence of mandatory retirement by asserting that forced retirement was inappropriate to the economic institutions of that era. Most businesses were not yet large; the few dozen employees in a sawmill or shoe factory were not enough to share the financial burdens of a pension program, while the close, personal relations of employer and employee in such enterprises perhaps made involuntary retirement without a pension (firing older workers) uncomfortable and infrequent.
Others argue that there were pools of labor sufficiently large to invite the development of mandatory retirement, but that such a system was unnecessary because older workers were retiring voluntarily. The labor pools in the textile industries and the railroads at least would qualify, they assert, and had smaller firms (ironworks, for example) wanted to retire their older workers, insurance companies would surely have moved in to combine the smaller firms' labor forces into a pool large enough to support a pension program.
Data from the United States census are useful to test the first explanation but not the second. In 1840, about 70 percent of white men over 65 were gainfully employed; fifty years later, when economic institutions had grown in size dramatically, that percentage was roughly the same. Regarding the second explanation, the census data, whether for 1840 or 1890, are not helpful because they are silent on how many of those not employed were physically incapable of working, how many could not find work, and how many had voluntarily retired. Thus, the conclusion that workers retired voluntarily cannot be proved from the census data, but neither can it be disproved.
Ques. 1/4
The passage suggests that in order to operate a pension program, it is necessary that
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| In 1860 in the United States, of all employees, only state judges in some states were forced to retire because of advancing age. | What it says: Back in 1860, almost nobody was required to retire when they got old - only some judges in certain states had mandatory retirement. What it does: Sets up the historical context and introduces the central topic of mandatory retirement Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous information to connect to Visualization: Imagine all workers in 1860 America: Factory workers, farmers, shopkeepers, teachers, judges, etc. Out of ALL these workers, only a tiny subset (some state judges) had forced retirement What We Know So Far: Mandatory retirement was extremely rare in 1860 What We Don't Know Yet: Why this was the case, what changed later |
| Although the 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary lists the word "retirement" in the sense of ceasing work, it does not suggest any special applicability to older people. | What it says: Even though the dictionary had the word "retirement" meaning "stop working," it wasn't specifically associated with old age What it does: Provides additional evidence that retirement wasn't an age-related concept Source/Type: Historical evidence from dictionary Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on and reinforces the first sentence - if even the dictionary didn't connect retirement with old age, it supports the idea that age-based retirement was uncommon Visualization: Webster's 1828 Dictionary entry: "Retirement: stopping work" (but no mention of "when you get old" or "at age 65") Reading Strategy Insight: Notice how this sentence doesn't introduce complexity - it simply gives us more evidence for the same basic point |
| Unencumbered by laws requiring that they cease work, older people in the early- and mid-nineteenth-century United States apparently labored until they chose to stop. | What it says: Since there were no laws forcing old people to retire, they just worked until they personally decided to stop What it does: Restates the main point in clear, simple terms Source/Type: Author's summary/conclusion based on evidence Connection to Previous Sentences: This is essentially a summary restatement of what we learned from the first two sentences. The author is helping us by clearly stating the logical conclusion Visualization: 1800s workers: No retirement laws → People work as long as they want → They choose their own stopping point Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is simplification, not new complexity! The author just gave us the clear takeaway from the evidence |
| Some explain this absence of mandatory retirement by asserting that forced retirement was inappropriate to the economic institutions of that era. | What it says: Some people think mandatory retirement didn't exist because it didn't fit the economic system of that time What it does: Introduces the first theory/explanation for why mandatory retirement was absent Source/Type: Theory/explanation from some scholars ("Some explain") Connection to Previous Sentences: Now that we've established WHAT happened (no mandatory retirement), we're moving to WHY it happened. This addresses the question we might naturally have after the first three sentences Visualization: Question: Why no mandatory retirement in 1800s? → Theory #1: The economic system back then made it inappropriate What We Know So Far: No mandatory retirement existed; some think it was due to economic factors What We Don't Know Yet: What these economic factors were, if there are other theories |
| Most businesses were not yet large; the few dozen employees in a sawmill or shoe factory were not enough to share the financial burdens of a pension program, while the close, personal relations of employer and employee in such enterprises perhaps made involuntary retirement without a pension (firing older workers) uncomfortable and infrequent. | What it says: Businesses were small (maybe 30-40 people), so they couldn't afford pensions, and since bosses knew workers personally, firing old workers felt wrong What it does: Explains and elaborates on the first theory with specific details Source/Type: Detailed explanation supporting the theory Connection to Previous Sentences: This sentence takes the vague phrase "inappropriate to economic institutions" and makes it concrete and understandable Visualization: Small 1860s shoe factory: 35 employees → Can't afford pensions for retirees → Boss knows everyone personally → Feels bad firing old workers → No mandatory retirement system Reading Strategy Insight: This clarifies rather than complicates! The author broke down the economic theory into understandable parts |
| Others argue that there were pools of labor sufficiently large to invite the development of mandatory retirement, but that such a system was unnecessary because older workers were retiring voluntarily. | What it says: Other people disagree - they say there WERE big enough groups of workers for retirement systems, but companies didn't need them because old workers were quitting on their own What it does: Introduces a competing theory that challenges the first explanation Source/Type: Alternative theory from other scholars ("Others argue") Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts with the previous theory - Theory #1 said "businesses too small," Theory #2 says "businesses were big enough, but didn't need mandatory retirement" Visualization: Theory #1: Small businesses → No mandatory retirement Theory #2: Big businesses existed → But old workers quit voluntarily → Still no mandatory retirement Reading Strategy Insight: Notice both theories explain the SAME outcome (no mandatory retirement) - they just disagree about the reason |
| The labor pools in the textile industries and the railroads at least would qualify, they assert, and had smaller firms (ironworks, for example) wanted to retire their older workers, insurance companies would surely have moved in to combine the smaller firms' labor forces into a pool large enough to support a pension program. | What it says: These theorists say textile companies and railroads had enough workers, and even small companies like ironworks could have joined together through insurance companies to create retirement programs What it does: Provides specific examples and details supporting Theory #2 Source/Type: Supporting evidence and examples for the second theory Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains and supports Theory #2 just like the earlier sentence explained Theory #1 Visualization: Large textile mills: 500+ workers → Big enough for pensions Small ironworks: 50 workers → Could combine with other small firms through insurance → Also big enough for pensions Reading Strategy Insight: The passage is following a parallel structure - give theory, then explain with details. This makes it easier to follow, not harder! |
| Data from the United States census are useful to test the first explanation but not the second. | What it says: Census information can help us figure out if Theory #1 is right, but it can't help us test Theory #2 What it does: Sets up how the author will evaluate the two competing theories Source/Type: Author's methodological statement Connection to Previous Sentences: Now that we have two theories, the author is telling us how to test them using evidence Visualization: Census data + Theory #1 (business size) = Can test ✓ Census data + Theory #2 (voluntary retirement) = Can't test ✗ What We Know So Far: Two theories exist, census can only test one of them What We Don't Know Yet: What the census data actually shows |
| In 1840, about 70 percent of white men over 65 were gainfully employed; fifty years later, when economic institutions had grown in size dramatically, that percentage was roughly the same. | What it says: In 1840, 70% of old men were working. Fifty years later (1890), when businesses had gotten much bigger, still about 70% of old men were working What it does: Provides the key census evidence to test Theory #1 Source/Type: Statistical evidence from census data Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the promised test of Theory #1. If Theory #1 were correct, we'd expect the percentage to decrease as businesses got larger, but it stayed the same Visualization: 1840: Small businesses + 70% of old men working 1890: Much larger businesses + 70% of old men still working If Theory #1 correct: Should see decrease from 70% to maybe 40% Reality: No change Reading Strategy Insight: This evidence challenges Theory #1 |
| Regarding the second explanation, the census data, whether for 1840 or 1890, are not helpful because they are silent on how many of those not employed were physically incapable of working, how many could not find work, and how many had voluntarily retired. | What it says: For Theory #2, the census doesn't help because it doesn't tell us WHY the 30% weren't working - were they sick, unemployed, or voluntarily retired? What it does: Restates and explains why census can't test Theory #2 Source/Type: Author's methodological explanation Connection to Previous Sentences: This elaborates on the earlier statement that census "are useful to test the first explanation but not the second" Visualization: 30% of old men not working could be: - 10% too sick to work + 10% can't find jobs + 10% voluntarily retired, OR - 5% too sick + 5% unemployed + 20% voluntarily retired, OR - Many other combinations Census doesn't tell us the breakdown Reading Strategy Insight: The author is being thorough and fair by explaining the limitations |
| Thus, the conclusion that workers retired voluntarily cannot be proved from the census data, but neither can it be disproved. | What it says: So we can't use census data to prove OR disprove that workers retired voluntarily What it does: Summarizes the final conclusion about testing Theory #2 Source/Type: Author's logical conclusion Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the clear, simple conclusion that follows from the previous sentence's explanation Visualization: Theory #2 status: Neither proven nor disproven ⚪ (neutral) Theory #1 status: Challenged by evidence ❌ Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here! The author has given us a clear, balanced conclusion. We understand exactly what the evidence shows and what it doesn't show Final Overview: The passage established that mandatory retirement was rare in the 1800s, presented two theories why, and showed that evidence challenges one theory while being inconclusive about the other. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To examine competing theories about why mandatory retirement was rare in 19th-century America and test these theories using available historical evidence.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their analysis in clear steps:
- First, they establish the historical fact that mandatory retirement was extremely rare in 1860s America, with supporting evidence from dictionaries and employment patterns
- Next, they present the first theory explaining this absence - that small businesses couldn't afford pension programs and personal relationships made firing older workers uncomfortable
- Then, they introduce a competing theory - that businesses were actually large enough for retirement programs, but didn't need them because older workers were retiring voluntarily
- Finally, they test both theories using census data, finding that the evidence challenges the first theory while remaining inconclusive about the second theory
Main Point:
While census evidence suggests that business size alone doesn't explain the absence of mandatory retirement in 19th-century America, the available data cannot definitively prove whether older workers were retiring voluntarily or not, leaving the question partially unresolved.
3. Question Analysis:
The question asks what the passage suggests is necessary for operating a pension program. This is asking us to identify a prerequisite or requirement for pension programs based on the information provided in the passage.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we know that:
- The first theory explained why mandatory retirement was absent by focusing on business size and pension feasibility
- The passage specifically mentioned that "the few dozen employees in a sawmill or shoe factory were not enough to share the financial burdens of a pension program"
- The second theory acknowledged that some industries had "pools of labor sufficiently large to invite the development of mandatory retirement"
- Even for smaller firms, the passage noted that "insurance companies would surely have moved in to combine the smaller firms' labor forces into a pool large enough to support a pension program"
Prethinking:
The passage repeatedly emphasizes the concept of having enough people to make a pension program financially viable. Whether discussing small businesses that couldn't afford pensions or the potential for insurance companies to combine smaller workforces into larger pools, the common thread is that pension programs require a substantial number of participants to "share the financial burdens" and make the system sustainable. This points directly to the necessity of having a large number of employees participate in the pension program.
Answer Choices Explained
A
the majority of workers retire voluntarily
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage discusses voluntary retirement as one theory for why mandatory retirement was unnecessary, not as a requirement for operating pension programs
• Pension programs and voluntary retirement are presented as separate concepts - pensions could theoretically exist regardless of whether retirement is voluntary or mandatory
• The passage suggests pension programs weren't developed because they weren't needed (due to voluntary retirement) or weren't feasible (due to small workforce size), not because voluntary retirement was required
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Confusing the absence of pension programs with requirements for pension programs?
→ Remember that the passage explains why pensions didn't exist, not what would be needed to make them work
2. Mixing up voluntary retirement as a cause versus a requirement?
→ Voluntary retirement was offered as an explanation for why pensions weren't necessary, not as a prerequisite for their operation
• The passage discusses voluntary retirement as one theory for why mandatory retirement was unnecessary, not as a requirement for operating pension programs
• Pension programs and voluntary retirement are presented as separate concepts - pensions could theoretically exist regardless of whether retirement is voluntary or mandatory
• The passage suggests pension programs weren't developed because they weren't needed (due to voluntary retirement) or weren't feasible (due to small workforce size), not because voluntary retirement was required
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Confusing the absence of pension programs with requirements for pension programs?
→ Remember that the passage explains why pensions didn't exist, not what would be needed to make them work
2. Mixing up voluntary retirement as a cause versus a requirement?
→ Voluntary retirement was offered as an explanation for why pensions weren't necessary, not as a prerequisite for their operation
B
the typical employee work for the same firm for most of his or her life
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage never discusses employee tenure or length of service as a factor in pension program operation
• The focus is entirely on the size of the workforce and financial burden-sharing, not on how long individual employees work for specific companies
• This concept is not mentioned anywhere in the passage's discussion of pension program requirements
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Bringing in outside knowledge about how modern pension systems work?
→ Focus only on what this specific passage tells us about pension requirements
2. Assuming that pension programs require long-term employment commitments?
→ The passage doesn't connect employee loyalty or tenure to pension feasibility
• The passage never discusses employee tenure or length of service as a factor in pension program operation
• The focus is entirely on the size of the workforce and financial burden-sharing, not on how long individual employees work for specific companies
• This concept is not mentioned anywhere in the passage's discussion of pension program requirements
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Bringing in outside knowledge about how modern pension systems work?
→ Focus only on what this specific passage tells us about pension requirements
2. Assuming that pension programs require long-term employment commitments?
→ The passage doesn't connect employee loyalty or tenure to pension feasibility
C
employers be prevented from firing older employees who do not have pensions
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage suggests that firing older workers without pensions was "uncomfortable and infrequent" due to personal relationships, not due to legal protections
• This addresses the social dynamics of small businesses, not the operational requirements of pension programs
• Legal protections for older workers are not presented as necessary for pension program operation
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Confusing social discomfort with legal requirements?
→ The passage describes personal discomfort in small businesses, not legal protections
2. Thinking that worker protection is the same as pension program requirements?
→ These are separate issues - the passage focuses on what makes pensions financially viable
• The passage suggests that firing older workers without pensions was "uncomfortable and infrequent" due to personal relationships, not due to legal protections
• This addresses the social dynamics of small businesses, not the operational requirements of pension programs
• Legal protections for older workers are not presented as necessary for pension program operation
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Confusing social discomfort with legal requirements?
→ The passage describes personal discomfort in small businesses, not legal protections
2. Thinking that worker protection is the same as pension program requirements?
→ These are separate issues - the passage focuses on what makes pensions financially viable
D
a large number of employees participate in the pension program
Why It's Right:
• The passage explicitly states that small businesses with "few dozen employees" were "not enough to share the financial burdens of a pension program"
• It emphasizes that insurance companies could "combine the smaller firms' labor forces into a pool large enough to support a pension program"
• The concept of having sufficient numbers to share financial burdens runs throughout the discussion of pension feasibility
Key Evidence: "Most businesses were not yet large; the few dozen employees in a sawmill or shoe factory were not enough to share the financial burdens of a pension program"
• The passage explicitly states that small businesses with "few dozen employees" were "not enough to share the financial burdens of a pension program"
• It emphasizes that insurance companies could "combine the smaller firms' labor forces into a pool large enough to support a pension program"
• The concept of having sufficient numbers to share financial burdens runs throughout the discussion of pension feasibility
Key Evidence: "Most businesses were not yet large; the few dozen employees in a sawmill or shoe factory were not enough to share the financial burdens of a pension program"
E
insurance companies be employed to combine a business' labor force with others into a pension program pool
Why It's Wrong:
• Insurance companies are mentioned as one possible mechanism for combining small workforces, not as a necessary requirement for all pension programs
• The passage suggests insurance companies "would surely have moved in" if needed, but presents this as a hypothetical solution for small firms, not a universal requirement
• Large industries like textiles and railroads could presumably operate pension programs without insurance company involvement
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Thinking that one specific solution mentioned applies to all situations?
→ Insurance companies were suggested only as a way to help small firms achieve the necessary scale
2. Confusing a suggested mechanism with a universal requirement?
→ The underlying requirement is large numbers of participants, not necessarily insurance company involvement
• Insurance companies are mentioned as one possible mechanism for combining small workforces, not as a necessary requirement for all pension programs
• The passage suggests insurance companies "would surely have moved in" if needed, but presents this as a hypothetical solution for small firms, not a universal requirement
• Large industries like textiles and railroads could presumably operate pension programs without insurance company involvement
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Thinking that one specific solution mentioned applies to all situations?
→ Insurance companies were suggested only as a way to help small firms achieve the necessary scale
2. Confusing a suggested mechanism with a universal requirement?
→ The underlying requirement is large numbers of participants, not necessarily insurance company involvement
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More