In mid-February 1917 a women's movement independent of political affiliation erupted in New York City, the stronghold of the Socialist...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
In mid-February 1917 a women's movement independent of political affiliation erupted in New York City, the stronghold of the Socialist Party in the United States. Protesting against the high cost of living, thousands of women refused to buy chickens, fish, and vegetables. The boycott shut down much of the City's foodstuffs marketing for two weeks, riveting public attention on the issue of food prices, which had increased partly as a result of increased exports of food to Europe that had been occurring since the outbreak of the First World War.
By early 1917 the Socialist party had established itself as a major political presence in New York City. New York Socialists, whose customary spheres of struggle were electoral work and trade union organizing, seized the opportunity and quickly organized an extensive series of cost-of-living protests designed to direct the women's movement toward Socialist goals. Underneath the Socialists' brief commitment to cost-of-living organizing lay a basic indifference to the issue itself. While some Socialists did view price protests as a direct step toward socialism, most Socialists ultimately sought to divert the cost-of-living movement into alternative channels of protest. Union organizing, they argued, was the best method through which to combat the high cost of living. For others, cost-of-living or organizing was valuable insofar as it led women into the struggle for suffrage, and similarly, the suffrage struggle was valuable insofar as it moved United States society one step closer to socialism.
Although New York's Socialists saw the cost-of-living issue as, at best, secondary or tertiary to the real task at hand, the boycotters, by sharp contrast, joined the price protest movement out of an urgent and deeply felt commitment to the cost-of-living issue. A shared experience of swiftly declining living standards caused by rising food prices drove these women to protest. Consumer organizing spoke directly to their daily lives and concerns; they saw cheaper food as a valuable end in itself. Food price protests were these women's way of organizing at their own workplace, as workers whose occupation was shopping and preparing food for their families.
The author suggests which of the following about New York Socialists' commitment to the cost-of-living movement?
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| In mid-February 1917 a women's movement independent of political affiliation erupted in New York City, the stronghold of the Socialist Party in the United States. | What it says: Women organized independently (not tied to any political party) in NYC, which was also where the Socialist Party was strongest. What it does: Sets up the scene - introduces time, place, and two key players (women's movement and Socialist Party) Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our opening - no previous connections yet What We Know So Far: Women organized independently in NYC in 1917; NYC was Socialist Party stronghold What We Don't Know Yet: What the women were protesting about, how the Socialist Party responded, what happened next Visualization: Picture NYC in 1917 with two separate groups: independent women protesters and established Socialist Party members Reading Strategy Insight: Notice the setup - we have two separate groups in the same place. This suggests their paths will cross. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To show how two groups with completely different motivations responded to the same historical event - a women's food boycott in 1917 New York City.
3. Question Analysis:
The question asks what the author suggests about New York Socialists' commitment to the cost-of-living movement. Based on the passage analysis, the key characteristic of the Socialists' commitment was that it was temporary and strategic rather than genuine. The passage explicitly uses the word "brief" to describe their commitment.
Why It's Right:
- The passage explicitly states the Socialists had a "brief commitment to cost-of-living organizing"
- The word "brief" directly indicates a short time period
- The passage structure shows they jumped in quickly but had "basic indifference" to the actual issue, suggesting their commitment wouldn't last
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage suggests the opposite - Socialists wanted to redirect the cost-of-living movement toward suffrage, not that they were more committed to cost-of-living than suffrage
- Suffrage is presented as one of the "alternative channels" they preferred over cost-of-living organizing
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage clearly shows their commitment came AFTER the women's movement erupted in February 1917
- The text states Socialists "seized the opportunity" after seeing the women's successful boycott
- There's no evidence in the passage of Socialist cost-of-living organizing before 1917
Why It's Wrong:
- While both union organizing and cost-of-living organizing happened around the same time, the passage doesn't suggest they "coincided" in a coordinated way
- The passage presents union organizing as an alternative to cost-of-living organizing, not something happening simultaneously
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage suggests the opposite relationship - the Socialist Party's popularity allowed them to influence the cost-of-living movement, not the reverse
- Their political strength is presented as pre-existing, while their cost-of-living involvement came after the women's February 1917 protests