Joseph Glatthaar's Forged in Battle is not the first excellent study of Black soldiers and their White officers in the...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Joseph Glatthaar's Forged in Battle is not the first excellent study of Black soldiers and their White officers in the Civil War, but it uses more soldiers' letters and diaries including rare material from Black soldiers—and concentrates more intensely on Black-White relations in Black regiments than do any of its predecessors. Glatthaar's title expresses his thesis: loyalty, friendship, and respect among White officers and Black soldiers were fostered by the mutual dangers they faced in combat.
Glatthaar accurately describes the government's discriminatory treatment of Black soldiers in pay, promotion, medical care, and job assignments, appropriately emphasizing the campaign by Black soldiers and their officers to get the opportunity to fight. That chance remained limited throughout the war by army policies that kept most Black units serving in rear-echelon assignments and working in labor battalions. Thus, while their combat death rate was only one-third that of White units, their mortality rate from disease, a major killer in this war, was twice as great. Despite these obstacles, the courage and effectiveness of several Black units in combat won increasing respect from initially skeptical or hostile White soldiers. As one White officer put it, "they have fought their way into the respect of all the army."
In trying to demonstrate the magnitude of this attitudinal change, however, Glatthaar seems to exaggerate the prewar racism of the White men who became officers in Black regiments. "Prior to the war," he writes of these men, "virtually all of them held powerful racial prejudices." While perhaps true of those officers who joined Black units for promotion or other self-serving motives, this statement misrepresents the attitudes of the many abolitionists who became officers in Black regiments. Having spent years fighting against the race prejudice endemic in American society, they participated eagerly in this military experiment, which they hoped would help African Americans achieve freedom and postwar civil equality. By current standards of racial egalitarianism, these men's paternalism toward African Americans was racist. But to call their feelings "powerful racial prejudices" is to indulge in generational chauvinism —to judge past eras by present standards.
The passage as a whole can best be characterized as which of the following?
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
Text from Passage | Analysis |
---|---|
Joseph Glatthaar's Forged in Battle is not the first excellent study of Black soldiers and their White officers in the Civil War, but it uses more soldiers' letters and diaries including rare material from Black soldiers—and concentrates more intensely on Black-White relations in Black regiments than do any of its predecessors. | What it says: Glatthaar wrote a book about Black Civil War soldiers and their White officers. Other good books exist, but his uses more primary sources and focuses more on racial relationships. What it does: Introduces the subject and establishes the book's unique contribution Source/Type: Author's factual assessment of Glatthaar's research Connection to Previous Sentences: First sentence - establishes our foundation Visualization: Imagine 5 previous excellent books on this topic, but Glatthaar's book uses 200 letters/diaries vs. others using 50, and focuses 80% on Black-White relations vs. others at 30% What We Know So Far: Glatthaar wrote a distinctive book about Civil War racial dynamics What We Don't Know Yet: What Glatthaar's main argument is, what he discovered |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To review and critique a historical book by pointing out where the author made a good argument but went too far in one key area.
Main Point:
While Glatthaar correctly showed that combat created respect between White officers and Black soldiers, he unfairly overstated how prejudiced the officers were initially, especially the abolitionists who joined these units specifically to fight racism.
Why It's Right:
- The passage systematically evaluates both strengths and weaknesses of Glatthaar's scholarly book
- It follows the classic structure of academic evaluation: introduction of work, explanation of thesis, assessment of evidence, identification of problems, and final judgment
- The author acts as a reviewer throughout, using evaluative language like "accurately describes," "appropriately emphasizing," "seems to exaggerate," and "misrepresents"
Key Evidence: "Joseph Glatthaar's Forged in Battle is not the first excellent study... but it uses more soldiers' letters and diaries" followed by "In trying to demonstrate the magnitude of this attitudinal change, however, Glatthaar seems to exaggerate" - this shows comprehensive scholarly assessment.
Why It's Wrong:
- While the passage mentions attitude change, it's not primarily describing the change itself but evaluating how Glatthaar analyzed that change
- The focus is on critiquing Glatthaar's interpretation of the attitude change, not on describing the change as a historical phenomenon
- The passage structure is evaluative (assessing a book) rather than descriptive (explaining a historical process)
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage identifies and discusses one analytical defect, but this is only part of a broader evaluation
- The author also praises multiple aspects of Glatthaar's work (use of sources, accuracy of historical description, valid thesis)
- A passage focused solely on "an analytical defect" wouldn't spend significant time establishing the book's contributions and strengths
Why It's Wrong:
- While the passage mentions causes (combat creating bonds, discrimination limiting opportunities), it doesn't analyze these causes as its primary purpose
- The passage presents Glatthaar's analysis of causes but focuses on evaluating whether his interpretation is accurate
- The structure is evaluative rather than analytical - it's assessing someone else's cause-and-effect analysis
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage doesn't argue that we should revise our view of Civil War racial dynamics or historical methodology in general
- It specifically criticizes Glatthaar's characterization without proposing a broader revision of historical understanding
- The author's criticism is targeted at one aspect of one book, not advocating for systematic revision of a broader viewpoint