Many politicians, business leaders, and scholars discount the role of public policy and emphasize the role of the labor market...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Many politicians, business leaders, and scholars discount the role of public policy and emphasize the role of the labor market when explaining employers' maternity-leave policies, arguing that prior to the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, employers were already providing maternity leave in response to the increase in the number of women workers. Employers did create maternity-leave programs in the 1970's and 1980's, but not as a purely voluntary response in the absence of any government mandate. In 1972, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that employers who allowed leaves for disabling medical conditions must also allow them for maternity and that failure to do so would constitute sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As early as 1973, a survey found that 58 percent of large employers had responded with new maternity-leave policies. Because the 1972 EEOC ruling was contested in court, the ruling won press attention that popularized maternity-leave policies. Yet perhaps because the Supreme Court later struck down the ruling, politicians and scholars have failed to recognize its effects, assuming that employers adopted maternity-leave policies in response to the growing feminization of the workforce.
It can be inferred that the author of the passage would be most likely to agree with which of the following statements about government policy?
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Many politicians, business leaders, and scholars discount the role of public policy and emphasize the role of the labor market when explaining employers' maternity-leave policies, arguing that prior to the passage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) of 1993, employers were already providing maternity leave in response to the increase in the number of women workers. | What it says: Important people believe that companies gave maternity leave because more women started working, not because of government rules. What it does: Introduces the conventional wisdom/mainstream view that the author will challenge Source/Type: Claims made by politicians, business leaders, and scholars Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous information to connect to Visualization: Timeline: Before 1993 FMLA Conventional View: More women workers → Companies voluntarily gave maternity leave Government policy = Not important What We Know So Far: There's a debate about why companies offered maternity leave before 1993 What We Don't Know Yet: What the author thinks about this view, what actually happened |
| Employers did create maternity-leave programs in the 1970's and 1980's, but not as a purely voluntary response in the absence of any government mandate. | What it says: Companies DID create these programs in the 70s and 80s, BUT it wasn't just voluntary - there WAS government involvement. What it does: Presents the author's counter-argument to the conventional view Source/Type: Author's assertion/opinion Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 1 told us: Politicians/scholars think it was purely market-driven - NOW Sentence 2: Author says "Yes, they created programs BUT not for the reasons those people think" - This directly contrasts with the "purely voluntary" idea from sentence 1 Visualization: 1970s-1980s: Companies create maternity leave programs Conventional view: Pure market response (NO government) Author's view: NOT purely voluntary (YES government involvement) Reading Strategy Insight: The word "but" signals the author disagrees with the opening view. We should expect evidence to support the author's position next. |
| In 1972, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) ruled that employers who allowed leaves for disabling medical conditions must also allow them for maternity and that failure to do so would constitute sex discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. | What it says: In 1972, a government agency said companies that give medical leave must also give maternity leave, or it's illegal sex discrimination. What it does: Provides the key evidence for the author's argument - shows specific government action Source/Type: Factual information about government ruling Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 1: Politicians think = no government mandate - Sentence 2: Author says = not purely voluntary - NOW Sentence 3: Provides the PROOF of government involvement - This builds on sentence 2 by giving the concrete government action that contradicts sentence 1 Visualization: Timeline: 1972 EEOC Ruling → 1970s-80s Company Programs → 1993 FMLA The ruling: Medical leave = Must include maternity leave Consequence: Not doing this = Sex discrimination = Illegal Reading Strategy Insight: This is classic RC structure - claim, then evidence. The author is building a clear case against the conventional wisdom. |
| As early as 1973, a survey found that 58 percent of large employers had responded with new maternity-leave policies. | What it says: Just one year later, most big companies (58%) had created new maternity leave policies. What it does: Shows the immediate impact of the 1972 ruling with concrete data Source/Type: Survey data/empirical evidence Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 3 told us: 1972 EEOC ruling required maternity leave - NOW Sentence 4: Shows companies quickly responded to that ruling - This builds on sentence 3 by demonstrating cause and effect Visualization: 1972: EEOC ruling ↓ (Just 1 year later) 1973: 58% of large employers = New maternity policies Clear timeline showing government action → company response What We Know So Far: Author has established government involvement (1972 ruling) and quick corporate response (1973 data) Reading Strategy Insight: Feel confident here - the author is giving us straightforward evidence in chronological order. This isn't complex; it's building a clear timeline. |
| Because the 1972 EEOC ruling was contested in court, the ruling won press attention that popularized maternity-leave policies. | What it says: The court challenges to the 1972 ruling actually helped spread the idea of maternity leave because it got media coverage. What it does: Explains an additional way the government ruling influenced policy adoption Source/Type: Author's analysis of cause and effect Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentences 3-4 established: Government ruling → Company response - NOW Sentence 5: Explains ANOTHER way the ruling helped spread policies - This elaborates on the impact from sentence 3, showing the ruling worked in multiple ways Visualization: 1972 EEOC Ruling → Two effects: 1. Direct: Companies comply (sentence 4) 2. Indirect: Court challenges → Media attention → Popularization Reading Strategy Insight: This adds detail but doesn't complicate the main argument. The author is still building the same point about government influence. |
| Yet perhaps because the Supreme Court later struck down the ruling, politicians and scholars have failed to recognize its effects, assuming that employers adopted maternity-leave policies in response to the growing feminization of the workforce. | What it says: The Supreme Court eventually overturned the 1972 ruling, which might explain why politicians and scholars don't realize how much that original ruling influenced companies - they still think it was just about more women workers. What it does: Explains why the conventional view exists and circles back to reinforce the author's main argument Source/Type: Author's explanation for the misconception Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 1: Introduced the politicians/scholars' view - Sentences 2-5: Author provided counter-evidence - NOW Sentence 6: Explains WHY those politicians/scholars are wrong and circles back to the opening - This is NOT new complexity - it's helping us understand the full picture Visualization: 1972: EEOC ruling → Companies respond Later: Supreme Court strikes down ruling Result: Politicians/scholars forget the original impact ↓ They incorrectly think: Women workers → Company policies (ignoring government role) Reading Strategy Insight: This is classic RC closure - the passage comes full circle. We're back to the opening view, but now we understand why it's wrong and why people believe it. What We Know Now: Complete argument about why the conventional wisdom misses the government's role in maternity leave policies |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To challenge the common belief about why companies started offering maternity leave by showing that government action, not just market forces, played a key role in this development.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by directly confronting a widely held view:
- First, the author presents the popular view held by politicians and scholars that companies gave maternity leave simply because more women entered the workforce, with no government influence.
- Next, the author directly contradicts this view, stating that companies did create these programs but not as a purely voluntary response.
- Then, the author provides concrete evidence by describing a 1972 government ruling that required companies to offer maternity leave and showing that most large companies quickly responded within a year.
- Finally, the author explains why people hold the wrong view by noting that the original ruling was later overturned by the Supreme Court, causing politicians and scholars to forget its original impact.
Main Point:
Government policy played a crucial role in encouraging companies to adopt maternity leave programs in the 1970s and 1980s, contrary to the widespread belief that these policies developed purely from market pressures due to more women workers.
Question Analysis:
This is an inference question asking what the author would agree with regarding government policy. We need to identify the author's views about how government policy works based on the evidence and arguments presented in the passage.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
The passage analysis reveals several key insights about the author's perspective on government policy:
- The author demonstrates that government action (1972 EEOC ruling) directly caused corporate behavior changes (58% of companies responded by 1973)
- The author shows that even when government policy is contested and eventually overturned (Supreme Court struck down the ruling), it can still have lasting effects
- The author argues that people fail to recognize policy impacts when the original policy is eliminated, leading to misconceptions about what caused certain outcomes
Prethinking:
The author's main argument centers on showing that the 1972 EEOC ruling had significant impact on maternity leave policies, even though it was later struck down by the Supreme Court. The key insight is that this government policy continued to influence corporate behavior and public awareness even after it was eliminated. The author suggests that because the ruling was overturned, politicians and scholars incorrectly assume it had no impact, when in fact it had already set changes in motion. This suggests the author would agree that government policies can have lasting effects even after they're eliminated.