In 1938, at the government-convened National Health Conference, organized labor emerged as a major proponent of legislation to guarantee universal...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
In 1938, at the government-convened National Health Conference, organized labor emerged as a major proponent of legislation to guarantee universal health care in the United States. The American Medical Association, representing physicians' interests, argued for preserving physicians' free-market prerogatives. Labor activists countered these arguments by insisting that health care was a fundamental right that should be guaranteed by government programs.
The labor activists' position represented a departure from the voluntarist view held until 1935 by leaders of the American Federation of labor (AFL), a leading affiliation of labor unions; the voluntarist view stressed workers' right to freedom from government intrusions into their lives and represented national health insurance as a threat to workers' privacy. AFL president Samuel Gompers, presuming to speak for all workers, had positioned the AFL as a leading opponent of the proposals for national health insurance that were advocated beginning in 1915 by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL), an organization dedicated to the study and reform of labor laws. Gompers' opposition to national health insurance was partly principled, arising from the premise that governments under capitalism invariably served employers', not workers', interests. Gompers feared the probing of government bureaucrats into workers' lives, as well as the possibility that government-mandated health insurance, financed in part by employers, could permit companies to require employee medical examinations that might be used to discharge disabled workers.
Yet the AFL's voluntarism had accommodated certain exceptions: the AFL had supported government intervention on behalf of injured workers and child laborers. AFL officials drew the line at national health insurance, however, partly out of concern for their own power. The fact that AFL outsiders such as the AALL had taken the most prominent advocacy roles antagonized Gompers. That this reform threatened union-sponsored benefit programs championed by Gompers made national health insurance even more objectionable.
Indeed, the AFL leadership did face serious organizational divisions. Many unionists, recognizing that union-run health programs covered only a small fraction of union members and that unions represented only a fraction of the nation's workforce, worked to enact compulsory health insurance in their state legislatures. This activism and the views underlying it came to prevail in the United States labor movement and in 1935 the AFL unequivocally reversed its position on health legislation.
The passage suggests which of the following about the voluntarist view held by leaders of the AFL regarding health care?
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| In 1938, at the government-convened National Health Conference, organized labor emerged as a major proponent of legislation to guarantee universal health care in the United States. | What it says: In 1938, labor unions became strong supporters of universal healthcare laws. What it does: Sets up the basic scenario and introduces our main topic Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our opening - establishes the foundation Visualization: Timeline starting at 1938 with Labor Unions supporting Universal Healthcare Reading Strategy Insight: Clean, straightforward opening. Note the year and main players. |
| The American Medical Association, representing physicians' interests, argued for preserving physicians' free-market prerogatives. | What it says: Doctors' organization wanted to keep the current free-market system What it does: Introduces the opposition to labor's position Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts with sentence 1 - while labor wanted universal healthcare, doctors wanted the opposite Visualization: 1938 Healthcare Debate: Labor Unions → FOR universal healthcare Doctors/AMA → AGAINST (want free-market) Reading Strategy Insight: Simple two-sided debate setup. This is classic RC structure - don't overthink it. |
| Labor activists countered these arguments by insisting that health care was a fundamental right that should be guaranteed by government programs. | What it says: Labor unions argued healthcare is a basic right that government should provide What it does: Explains labor's reasoning/justification for their position Source/Type: Historical fact about labor's argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 1 by explaining WHY labor supported universal healthcare Visualization: Labor's Argument: Healthcare = Fundamental Right → Government Should Guarantee It Reading Strategy Insight: This elaborates on the labor position we already knew about. Feel confident - no new complexity. |
| The labor activists' position represented a departure from the voluntarist view held until 1935 by leaders of the American Federation of labor (AFL), a leading affiliation of labor unions; the voluntarist view stressed workers' right to freedom from government intrusions into their lives and represented national health insurance as a threat to workers' privacy. | What it says: Before 1935, even labor unions (specifically AFL) opposed government health insurance because they wanted government to stay out of workers' lives What it does: Shows this was a CHANGE in labor's position - introduces historical context Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains that labor's 1938 support was NEW - they used to oppose it too Visualization: AFL Position Timeline: Before 1935: AGAINST government health insurance ("voluntarist") 1938: FOR government health insurance What We Know So Far: Labor changed their minds between 1935-1938 What We Don't Know Yet: Why they changed, what happened in 1935 Reading Strategy Insight: Key transition point identified. The passage will likely explain this change. |
| AFL president Samuel Gompers, presuming to speak for all workers, had positioned the AFL as a leading opponent of the proposals for national health insurance that were advocated beginning in 1915 by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL), an organization dedicated to the study and reform of labor laws. | What it says: Samuel Gompers (AFL leader) strongly opposed health insurance plans that another organization (AALL) had been pushing since 1915 What it does: Gives us a specific person and shows the opposition was long-standing Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives us the specific example of the "before 1935" opposition we just learned about Visualization: 1915-1935 Health Insurance Debate: AALL → Pushing FOR health insurance Gompers/AFL → Fighting AGAINST it Reading Strategy Insight: This is concrete detail supporting the previous general statement. Not new complexity - just specifics. |
| Gompers' opposition to national health insurance was partly principled, arising from the premise that governments under capitalism invariably served employers', not workers', interests. | What it says: Gompers opposed it because he believed capitalist governments always help bosses, not workers What it does: Explains Gompers' ideological reasoning Source/Type: Historical fact about Gompers' beliefs Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on the previous sentence by explaining WHY Gompers opposed health insurance Visualization: Gompers' Logic: Capitalist Government → Always Serves Employers → Therefore Don't Trust Government Programs Reading Strategy Insight: The author is helping us understand motivations. This explains the "voluntarist view" mentioned earlier. |
| Gompers feared the probing of government bureaucrats into workers' lives, as well as the possibility that government-mandated health insurance, financed in part by employers, could permit companies to require employee medical examinations that might be used to discharge disabled workers. | What it says: Gompers worried that government health insurance would let employers force medical exams and fire disabled workers What it does: Provides specific, practical fears behind Gompers' opposition Source/Type: Historical fact about Gompers' concerns Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on the previous sentence with concrete examples of why he didn't trust government programs Visualization: Gompers' Fears: Government Health Insurance → Medical Exams Required → Disabled Workers Get Fired Reading Strategy Insight: More detail on the same point. This reinforces rather than complicates the argument. |
| Yet the AFL's voluntarism had accommodated certain exceptions: the AFL had supported government intervention on behalf of injured workers and child laborers. | What it says: Even though AFL generally opposed government involvement, they DID support it for injured workers and child workers What it does: Shows AFL wasn't absolutely against all government programs Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts with the previous sentences by showing AFL wasn't totally consistent in opposing government intervention Visualization: AFL's Position: ✓ Government help for injured workers ✓ Government help for child laborers ✗ Government health insurance Reading Strategy Insight: Note "Yet" - this shows some contradiction/complexity in AFL's position. |
| AFL officials drew the line at national health insurance, however, partly out of concern for their own power. | What it says: AFL opposed health insurance partly because it would reduce their own power What it does: Reveals a less noble, self-interested motive Source/Type: Author's interpretation/analysis Connection to Previous Sentences: This adds to the previous explanations of WHY AFL opposed health insurance, but suggests a more selfish reason Visualization: AFL's Motives Against Health Insurance: 1. Principled (don't trust government) 2. Practical fears (medical exams) 3. Self-interest (protect their power) Reading Strategy Insight: The author is building a complete picture of motivations - from noble to self-serving. |
| The fact that AFL outsiders such as the AALL had taken the most prominent advocacy roles antagonized Gompers. | What it says: Gompers was annoyed that outsiders (like AALL) were leading the health insurance movement What it does: Provides specific example of the "concern for their own power" Source/Type: Historical fact/interpretation Connection to Previous Sentences: This gives us a concrete example of the "concern for their own power" we just read about Visualization: Gompers' Frustration: AALL (Outsiders) Leading Health Reform → AFL Looks Less Important Reading Strategy Insight: This is supporting detail, not new complexity. The author is explaining the power concern. |
| That this reform threatened union-sponsored benefit programs championed by Gompers made national health insurance even more objectionable. | What it says: National health insurance would compete with unions' own benefit programs, making Gompers oppose it even more What it does: Adds another self-interested reason for AFL opposition Source/Type: Author's analysis Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on the "concern for their own power" theme with another example Visualization: Competition Problem: National Health Insurance → Would Replace Union Benefits → Unions Less Important to Workers Reading Strategy Insight: Still building the complete picture of self-interested motives. Pattern of multiple reasons emerging. |
| Indeed, the AFL leadership did face serious organizational divisions. | What it says: AFL leaders had internal disagreements/conflicts within their organization What it does: Introduces internal conflict within AFL Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: "Indeed" signals this confirms/supports the power concerns - if there were divisions, leadership power was threatened What We Know So Far: AFL opposed health insurance for multiple reasons, including self-interest What We Don't Know Yet: What these divisions were about Reading Strategy Insight: "Indeed" is a helpful connector - confirms previous points about power struggles. |
| Many unionists, recognizing that union-run health programs covered only a small fraction of union members and that unions represented only a fraction of the nation's workforce, worked to enact compulsory health insurance in their state legislatures. | What it says: Many union members realized their health programs weren't helping enough people, so they supported government health insurance in their states What it does: Explains what the "organizational divisions" were about Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains the "serious organizational divisions" - regular members disagreed with leadership Visualization: Internal AFL Conflict: Leadership (Gompers) → AGAINST health insurance Many Members → FOR health insurance (because union programs insufficient) Reading Strategy Insight: The pieces are connecting nicely. Leadership vs. membership conflict is now clear. |
| This activism and the views underlying it came to prevail in the United States labor movement and in 1935 the AFL unequivocally reversed its position on health legislation. | What it says: The regular members won the argument, and in 1935 AFL officially changed to support health insurance What it does: Resolves the story by explaining the 1935 change we learned about early in the passage Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This completes the explanation of WHY AFL changed positions between the early opposition and 1938 support Visualization: Complete Timeline: 1915-1935: AFL opposes (Gompers' leadership) 1935: Internal pressure wins → AFL reverses position 1938: AFL supports universal healthcare Reading Strategy Insight: The circle is now complete! This explains the change mentioned in sentence 4. Feel confident - the passage ties together beautifully. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain how organized labor's position on government health insurance completely changed between the early 1900s and 1938, and why this change happened.
Summary of Passage Structure:
In this passage, the author walks us through a complete historical transformation by showing us both sides of the story:
- First, the author sets up the 1938 situation where labor unions strongly supported universal healthcare, contrasting this with doctors who wanted to keep the free-market system.
- Next, the author reveals that this was actually a major change - before 1935, labor unions had been against government health insurance and wanted the government to stay out of workers' lives.
- Then, the author explains why unions originally opposed health insurance by focusing on AFL leader Samuel Gompers, showing his mix of principled beliefs, practical fears, and self-interested concerns about protecting union power.
- Finally, the author shows how regular union members disagreed with their leadership because union health programs weren't helping enough people, and this internal pressure forced the AFL to officially reverse its position in 1935.
Main Point:
The labor movement's support for government health insurance in 1938 was the result of regular union members overcoming their own leadership's resistance, which had been based on both genuine concerns about government power and self-interested desires to protect union influence.
Question Analysis:
The question asks what the passage "suggests" about the voluntarist view held by AFL leaders regarding health care. This means we need to find information that's either directly stated or can be reasonably inferred from the passage about this specific viewpoint.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we know that:
- The voluntarist view was held by AFL leaders until 1935 and "stressed workers' right to freedom from government intrusions into their lives and represented national health insurance as a threat to workers' privacy"
- Samuel Gompers positioned the AFL as "a leading opponent of the proposals for national health insurance that were advocated beginning in 1915 by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL)"
- There were "serious organizational divisions" within the AFL, with many regular unionists supporting health insurance despite leadership opposition
- The AALL was described as "AFL outsiders" whose prominent advocacy roles "antagonized Gompers"
Prethinking:
The key insight is that the voluntarist view put AFL leaders in direct opposition to the AALL's advocacy for national health insurance. Since the AALL was pushing for government health insurance starting in 1915, and the AFL's voluntarist view opposed government intrusion into workers' lives, these two positions were fundamentally incompatible. This suggests the AALL would have opposed the voluntarist view.
Why It's Right:
• The passage clearly establishes that AALL advocated for national health insurance beginning in 1915, while the AFL's voluntarist view opposed government intrusions into workers' lives
• The voluntarist view "represented national health insurance as a threat to workers' privacy," directly contradicting AALL's advocacy
• Gompers positioned the AFL as "a leading opponent" of AALL's proposals, showing these were opposing viewpoints
• The passage describes AALL as "AFL outsiders" whose advocacy "antagonized Gompers," indicating fundamental disagreement
Key Evidence: "AFL president Samuel Gompers, presuming to speak for all workers, had positioned the AFL as a leading opponent of the proposals for national health insurance that were advocated beginning in 1915 by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL)"
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage indicates there were "serious organizational divisions" within the AFL
• Many unionists actually disagreed with leadership and "worked to enact compulsory health insurance in their state legislatures"
• The voluntarist view was held by "leaders" but not necessarily shared by most unionists
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Assuming that because leaders held this view, most members did too?
→ The passage specifically shows internal divisions where members disagreed with leadership
1. Confusing "leaders" with "most unionists"?
→ Pay attention to who specifically held each viewpoint - leadership vs. membership had different positions
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage shows the AMA and AFL actually had similar positions in opposing government health programs
• The AMA argued for "preserving physicians' free-market prerogatives" which aligns with the AFL's opposition to government intrusion
• The voluntarist view would likely have been supported by, not antagonistic to, the AMA
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Thinking that because they represented different groups, they must have disagreed?
→ Focus on the actual positions described - both opposed government involvement
1. Confusing the 1938 labor position with the earlier voluntarist view?
→ Remember the timeline - the voluntarist view was the earlier position before 1935
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage makes no comparison between employer-sponsored and union-run health programs in relation to the voluntarist view
• The voluntarist view was about opposing government intrusion, not about preferring one type of private program over another
• This choice mischaracterizes what the voluntarist view actually emphasized
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Assuming the voluntarist view addressed employer vs. union programs?
→ The voluntarist view was specifically about government vs. private control, not about different types of private programs
1. Conflating different issues discussed in the passage?
→ Keep distinct the voluntarist view, power concerns, and benefit program competition
Why It's Wrong:
• While the AFL did support government intervention for child laborers, this was presented as an "exception" to their voluntarist view, not as the basis of it
• The voluntarist view was based on opposing government intrusion generally, not on making distinctions between child and adult workers
• The passage presents child labor support as inconsistent with, rather than fundamental to, the voluntarist position
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Thinking the exceptions explain the rule rather than contradict it?
→ The word "Yet" signals these were inconsistencies in AFL's position, not core principles
1. Missing that this was an exception to the voluntarist view?
→ Pay attention to signal words like "Yet" and "exceptions" that show contradictions