Many scholars have theorized that economic development, particularly industrialization and urbanization, contributes to the growth of participatory de...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Official Guide
...
...
Post a Query
Many scholars have theorized that economic development, particularly industrialization and urbanization, contributes to the growth of participatory democracy; according to this theory, it would seem logical that women would both demand and gain suffrage in ever greater numbers whenever economic development expanded their economic opportunities. However, the economic development theory is inadequate to explain certain historical facts about the implementation of women's suffrage. For example, why was women's suffrage, instituted nationally in the United States in 1920, not instituted nationally in Switzerland until the 1970's? Industrialization was well advanced in both countries by 1920: over 33 percent of American workers were employed in various industries, as compared to 44 percent of Swiss workers. Granted, Switzerland and the United States diverged in the degree to which the expansion of industry coincide with the degree of urbanization: only 29 percent of the Swiss population lived in cities of 10,000 or more inhabitants by 1920. However, urbanization cannot fully explain women's suffrage. Within the United States prior to 1920, for example, only less urbanized states had granted women suffrage. Similarly, less urbanized countries such as Cambodia and Ghana had voting rights for women long before Switzerland did. It is true that Switzerland urbanized cantons (political subdivisions) generally enacted women's suffrage legislation earlier than did rural cantons. However, these cantons often shared other characteristics—similar linguistic background and strong leftist parties—that may help to explain this phenomenon.
Ques. 1/5
The primary purpose of the passage is to
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Many scholars have theorized that economic development, particularly industrialization and urbanization, contributes to the growth of participatory democracy; according to this theory, it would seem logical that women would both demand and gain suffrage in ever greater numbers whenever economic development expanded their economic opportunities. | What it says: Researchers believe that when countries become more industrial and urban, democracy grows, so women should get voting rights when the economy gives them more job opportunities. What it does: Introduces the main theory being discussed Source/Type: Scholarly theory/claim from researchers Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the opening - no previous information to connect to Visualization: Economic Development Theory: More Industry + More Cities → More Democracy → More Women's Voting Rights What We Know So Far: There's a theory linking economic development to women's suffrage What We Don't Know Yet: Whether this theory is correct or has problems Reading Strategy Insight: This is a theory introduction - expect the author to either support or challenge it next |
| However, the economic development theory is inadequate to explain certain historical facts about the implementation of women's suffrage. | What it says: The theory from sentence 1 doesn't work - it can't explain what actually happened in history. What it does: Directly challenges the theory just introduced Source/Type: Author's claim/argument Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 1 told us: Economic development theory says X should happen - NOW Sentence 2: This theory is inadequate - This is a direct contrast using "However" Visualization: Theory says: Economic Development → Women's Suffrage Reality: This doesn't match historical facts What We Know So Far: There's a theory, but the author thinks it's wrong What We Don't Know Yet: What specific historical facts contradict the theory Reading Strategy Insight: The "However" signals the author's main argument - they're going to show why this theory fails |
| For example, why was women's suffrage, instituted nationally in the United States in 1920, not instituted nationally in Switzerland until the 1970's? | What it says: Here's a puzzle: US women got the vote in 1920, but Swiss women didn't get it until the 1970s - a 50+ year difference. What it does: Provides the first concrete example of the theory's inadequacy Source/Type: Historical facts Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 2 told us: The theory can't explain certain historical facts - NOW Sentence 3: Here's the first specific example ("For example") - This builds on sentence 2 by providing evidence Visualization: Timeline: 1920: US women get vote 1970s: Swiss women get vote (50+ years later) Question: If economic development causes women's suffrage, why this huge gap? What We Know So Far: The author has a specific case that challenges the theory What We Don't Know Yet: How developed each country was economically Reading Strategy Insight: This rhetorical question sets up the comparison - expect economic data for both countries next |
| Industrialization was well advanced in both countries by 1920: over 33 percent of American workers were employed in various industries, as compared to 44 percent of Swiss workers. | What it says: By 1920, both countries were highly industrialized, with Switzerland actually MORE industrial than the US (44% vs 33% of workers in industry). What it does: Provides the economic data that makes the puzzle even more puzzling Source/Type: Historical economic facts Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 3 asked: Why did US get suffrage in 1920 but Switzerland in 1970s? - NOW Sentence 4: Shows Switzerland was MORE industrialized than the US by 1920 - This deepens the contradiction of the economic development theory Visualization: 1920 Industrial Workers: Switzerland: 44% of workers in industry → No women's suffrage until 1970s US: 33% of workers in industry → Women's suffrage in 1920 What We Know So Far: The more industrialized country (Switzerland) gave women the vote 50+ years later - this contradicts the theory What We Don't Know Yet: What about urbanization (the other part of economic development) Reading Strategy Insight: This makes the theory look even more wrong - the opposite of what it predicts happened |
| Granted, Switzerland and the United States diverged in the degree to which the expansion of industry coincide with the degree of urbanization: only 29 percent of the Swiss population lived in cities of 10,000 or more inhabitants by 1920. | What it says: The author admits Switzerland was much less urban than the US - only 29% lived in cities of 10,000+ people. What it does: Acknowledges a potential counterargument about urbanization differences Source/Type: Historical demographic facts Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 1 mentioned both industrialization AND urbanization as factors - Sentence 4 showed Switzerland was more industrialized - NOW Sentence 5: Shows Switzerland was less urbanized - This builds on the comparison by adding the urbanization factor Visualization: 1920 Comparison: Switzerland: 44% industrial workers, 29% urban → No women's suffrage US: 33% industrial workers, [much higher urban %] → Women's suffrage What We Know So Far: Switzerland was more industrial but less urban than the US What We Don't Know Yet: Whether urbanization can explain the suffrage difference Reading Strategy Insight: "Granted" shows the author is being fair by considering potential objections to their argument |
| However, urbanization cannot fully explain women's suffrage. | What it says: Even urbanization doesn't solve the puzzle of women's suffrage patterns. What it does: Restates the main argument - economic development theory (including urbanization) is inadequate Source/Type: Author's claim Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 2 said: Economic development theory is inadequate - Sentence 5 acknowledged urbanization differences - NOW Sentence 6: Restates that urbanization doesn't work either - This circles back to reinforce the main argument Visualization: Theory says: Industry + Cities → Women's Suffrage Reality: This doesn't explain what happened What We Know So Far: Neither industrialization nor urbanization can explain suffrage patterns What We Don't Know Yet: What evidence supports this claim about urbanization Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is simplification, not new complexity. The author is restating their main point before giving more evidence. |
| Within the United States prior to 1920, for example, only less urbanized states had granted women suffrage. | What it says: Before 1920, the US states that gave women the vote were the ones with fewer cities, not more cities. What it does: Provides first piece of evidence that urbanization doesn't predict suffrage Source/Type: Historical facts about US states Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 6 claimed: Urbanization cannot fully explain women's suffrage - NOW Sentence 7: Gives first example ("for example") - This provides evidence for the claim in sentence 6 Visualization: Pre-1920 US States: More Urban States → No women's suffrage Less Urban States → Had women's suffrage (Opposite of what economic development theory predicts) What We Know So Far: Even within the US, urbanization predicts the opposite of what the theory says What We Don't Know Yet: Are there other countries that show this pattern Reading Strategy Insight: This is another concrete example supporting the author's argument - the pattern is becoming clear |
| Similarly, less urbanized countries such as Cambodia and Ghana had voting rights for women long before Switzerland did. | What it says: Cambodia and Ghana (less urban countries) gave women voting rights much earlier than Switzerland (more urban). What it does: Provides second piece of evidence that urbanization doesn't predict suffrage Source/Type: International historical facts Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 6 claimed: Urbanization cannot explain suffrage - Sentence 7 gave US states example - NOW Sentence 8: Gives international example ("Similarly") - This builds on sentence 7 by showing the same pattern globally Visualization: International Comparison: Cambodia & Ghana: Less urban → Early women's suffrage Switzerland: More urban → Very late women's suffrage (1970s) What We Know So Far: Both within the US and internationally, urbanization often predicts the opposite of what the theory says What We Don't Know Yet: Whether there are any cases where urbanization does seem to matter Reading Strategy Insight: "Similarly" signals this is more evidence for the same point, not new complexity |
| It is true that Switzerland urbanized cantons (political subdivisions) generally enacted women's suffrage legislation earlier than did rural cantons. | What it says: The author admits that within Switzerland, urban areas did give women the vote before rural areas. (Cantons are like states or provinces) What it does: Acknowledges a fact that seems to support urbanization theory Source/Type: Historical facts about Swiss cantons Connection to Previous Sentences: - Previous sentences showed urbanization doesn't predict suffrage - NOW Sentence 9: Admits there's one case where it seems to - This acknowledges a potential counterargument to be fair Visualization: Within Switzerland: Urban cantons → Earlier women's suffrage Rural cantons → Later women's suffrage (This DOES match the economic development theory) What We Know So Far: Urbanization mostly doesn't predict suffrage, but within Switzerland it seems to What We Don't Know Yet: Whether there's another explanation for the Swiss pattern Reading Strategy Insight: "It is true that" signals the author is being balanced, but expect a "but" or "however" next |
| However, these cantons often shared other characteristics—similar linguistic background and strong leftist parties—that may help to explain this phenomenon. | What it says: But those urban Swiss cantons also had other things in common - they spoke the same language and had liberal political parties - which might be the real reason for early suffrage. What it does: Provides alternative explanation for the apparent urbanization effect in Switzerland Source/Type: Author's analysis of Swiss political/cultural factors Connection to Previous Sentences: - Sentence 9 admitted: Swiss urban cantons got suffrage earlier - NOW Sentence 10: But there might be other explanations - This maintains the author's argument that urbanization alone doesn't explain suffrage Visualization: Swiss Urban Cantons with Early Suffrage: - More urbanized ✓ - Similar language ✓ } These factors might be - Strong leftist parties ✓ } the real explanations What We Know So Far: Even the apparent exception (Swiss cantons) might not actually support the urbanization theory Reading Strategy Insight: The author has systematically addressed potential objections and maintained their main argument throughout |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To challenge a popular theory by showing that it cannot explain real historical events
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by systematically testing a theory against historical facts:
- First, the author introduces a widely accepted theory that claims economic development (industrialization and urbanization) leads to women getting voting rights
- Next, the author directly challenges this theory by stating it fails to explain certain historical facts
- Then, the author provides specific evidence from multiple sources - comparing the US and Switzerland, looking at patterns within US states, examining other countries like Cambodia and Ghana, and analyzing Swiss regions
- Finally, the author addresses potential counterarguments by showing that even cases that seem to support the theory might have other explanations
Main Point:
The theory linking economic development to women's voting rights does not work because historical evidence shows the opposite pattern - less developed places often gave women the vote before more developed places did.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify the primary purpose of the passage - essentially, what is the author's main goal in writing this text? We need to look at the overall structure and flow of the passage to understand what the author is trying to accomplish.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our analysis, we can see a clear pattern:
- The author introduces a theory (economic development leads to women's suffrage)
- The author immediately challenges this theory as inadequate
- The author systematically provides evidence from multiple sources (US vs Switzerland, US states, international examples, Swiss cantons)
- The author addresses potential counterarguments while maintaining their position
The passage analysis shows the author's main argument is that the economic development theory is inadequate to explain certain historical facts about the implementation of women's suffrage. This signals the author is testing a theory against real-world evidence.
Prethinking:
The author's primary purpose is to examine whether a popular theory (economic development causes women's suffrage) can actually explain what happened in history. The author concludes it cannot - the theory has limited applicability because it fails to predict or explain many historical cases. The author isn't proposing a new theory or contrasting multiple theories, but rather evaluating one specific theory's ability to explain historical events.
Answer Choices Explained
A
contrast two explanations for the implementation of women's suffrage
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage focuses on one main theory (economic development) rather than contrasting two different explanations
• While the author mentions alternative factors like "linguistic background and strong leftist parties" for Swiss cantons, these aren't presented as competing theories but as additional possible explanations
• The structure shows evaluation of one theory, not comparison of two theories
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did the author mention language and political parties as an alternative explanation?
→ Yes, but this was mentioned briefly to explain one specific case, not as a comprehensive alternative theory being contrasted throughout the passage
1. Doesn't the author compare industrialization vs urbanization?
→ No, these are both parts of the same economic development theory, not separate competing explanations
• The passage focuses on one main theory (economic development) rather than contrasting two different explanations
• While the author mentions alternative factors like "linguistic background and strong leftist parties" for Swiss cantons, these aren't presented as competing theories but as additional possible explanations
• The structure shows evaluation of one theory, not comparison of two theories
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Did the author mention language and political parties as an alternative explanation?
→ Yes, but this was mentioned briefly to explain one specific case, not as a comprehensive alternative theory being contrasted throughout the passage
1. Doesn't the author compare industrialization vs urbanization?
→ No, these are both parts of the same economic development theory, not separate competing explanations
B
demonstrate that one factor contributes more than another factor to the implementation of women's suffrage
Why It's Wrong:
• The author doesn't argue that one factor contributes more than another - instead argues that the economic development factors (industrialization and urbanization) don't adequately explain suffrage patterns
• The passage shows that neither industrialization nor urbanization consistently predicts women's suffrage
• The author's conclusion is that the theory is inadequate overall, not that we should weight factors differently
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the author show that industrialization data contradicts the theory while urbanization might have some support?
→ The author shows both factors fail to explain the patterns, concluding "urbanization cannot fully explain women's suffrage"
1. What about the Swiss cantons where urbanization seemed to matter?
→ The author suggests other factors might explain that pattern, not that urbanization is more important
• The author doesn't argue that one factor contributes more than another - instead argues that the economic development factors (industrialization and urbanization) don't adequately explain suffrage patterns
• The passage shows that neither industrialization nor urbanization consistently predicts women's suffrage
• The author's conclusion is that the theory is inadequate overall, not that we should weight factors differently
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the author show that industrialization data contradicts the theory while urbanization might have some support?
→ The author shows both factors fail to explain the patterns, concluding "urbanization cannot fully explain women's suffrage"
1. What about the Swiss cantons where urbanization seemed to matter?
→ The author suggests other factors might explain that pattern, not that urbanization is more important
C
discuss the applicability of a theory for explaining the implementation of women's suffrage
Why It's Right:
• The passage directly states the economic development theory "is inadequate to explain certain historical facts"
• The author systematically tests the theory against multiple historical cases
• The structure moves from theory introduction to evaluation of its applicability to real-world events
• The author examines both supportive and contradictory evidence before concluding the theory has limited applicability
Key Evidence: "However, the economic development theory is inadequate to explain certain historical facts about the implementation of women's suffrage."
• The passage directly states the economic development theory "is inadequate to explain certain historical facts"
• The author systematically tests the theory against multiple historical cases
• The structure moves from theory introduction to evaluation of its applicability to real-world events
• The author examines both supportive and contradictory evidence before concluding the theory has limited applicability
Key Evidence: "However, the economic development theory is inadequate to explain certain historical facts about the implementation of women's suffrage."
D
clarify certain assumptions underlying a particular theory about the implementation of women's suffrage
Why It's Wrong:
• The author doesn't focus on clarifying assumptions underlying the theory
• The passage doesn't explain what the theory assumes or why scholars believe it
• Instead, the author takes the theory as given and tests whether it works in practice
• The focus is on empirical evidence contradicting the theory, not on theoretical assumptions
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the author explain what the economic development theory claims?
→ Yes, but explaining a theory's claims is different from clarifying its underlying assumptions
1. What about discussing why scholars believe this theory?
→ The author mentions "many scholars have theorized" but doesn't analyze their reasoning or assumptions
• The author doesn't focus on clarifying assumptions underlying the theory
• The passage doesn't explain what the theory assumes or why scholars believe it
• Instead, the author takes the theory as given and tests whether it works in practice
• The focus is on empirical evidence contradicting the theory, not on theoretical assumptions
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the author explain what the economic development theory claims?
→ Yes, but explaining a theory's claims is different from clarifying its underlying assumptions
1. What about discussing why scholars believe this theory?
→ The author mentions "many scholars have theorized" but doesn't analyze their reasoning or assumptions
E
explain how a particular historical occurrence was causally connected to the implementation of women's suffrage
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't focus on explaining how one historical event caused women's suffrage
• Instead, it examines multiple historical cases to test a theory
• The author's goal is to evaluate a theory's explanatory power, not to trace causal connections for specific events
• The examples (US 1920, Switzerland 1970s, various states and countries) are used as test cases, not as detailed causal explanations
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the author explain why the US got suffrage in 1920?
→ The author uses the 1920 date as a data point to test the theory, not to explain what caused suffrage in that year
1. What about the discussion of Swiss cantons and their characteristics?
→ This briefly suggests possible causes for one case, but isn't the main focus of the passage
• The passage doesn't focus on explaining how one historical event caused women's suffrage
• Instead, it examines multiple historical cases to test a theory
• The author's goal is to evaluate a theory's explanatory power, not to trace causal connections for specific events
• The examples (US 1920, Switzerland 1970s, various states and countries) are used as test cases, not as detailed causal explanations
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Doesn't the author explain why the US got suffrage in 1920?
→ The author uses the 1920 date as a data point to test the theory, not to explain what caused suffrage in that year
1. What about the discussion of Swiss cantons and their characteristics?
→ This briefly suggests possible causes for one case, but isn't the main focus of the passage
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More