Research data indicate that there is a great deal of poverty in the United States among single parent families headed...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Research data indicate that there is a great deal of poverty in the United States among single parent families headed by women. This problem could result from the fact that women's wages are only 60 percent of men's. Some economists believe that rigorous enforcement of existing equal pay laws would substantially decrease this wage inequity. But equal pay laws are ineffectual when women and men are concentrated in different occupations because such laws require only that women and men doing the same jobs be paid the same. Since gender concentration exists (for example, 80 percent of clerical workers are women), other economists argue that a comparable worth standard, which would mandate that women and men in any jobs that require comparable training and responsibility be paid the same, should be applied instead. But some policy analysts assert that, although comparable worth would virtually equalize male and female wages, many single parent families headed by women would remain in poverty because many men earn wages that are below the poverty line. These policy analysts believe that the problem is not caused primarily by wage inequity but rather by low wages coupled with single parent hood, regardless of sex. As a solution, they challenge the government's assumption that a family's income should depend primarily on wages and urge the government to provide generous wage supplements (child and housing allowances) to single parents whose wages are low.
The passage suggests that the United States government's policy towards providing wage supplements to parents whose wages are low is
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Research data indicate that there is a great deal of poverty in the United States among single parent families headed by women. | What it says: Single mothers in the US face significant poverty. What it does: Introduces the main problem the passage will address. Source/Type: Research data (factual claim) Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous sentences to connect to. Visualization: Single mother families: High poverty rates Other family types: [We don't know yet] Reading Strategy Insight: This opening sentence establishes a clear, concrete problem. Expect the rest of the passage to explore WHY this happens and potential solutions. What We Know So Far: Single mother families have high poverty rates What We Don't Know Yet: Why this happens, how bad it is compared to other groups, what solutions exist |
| This problem could result from the fact that women's wages are only 60 percent of men's. | What it says: Women earn 60 cents for every dollar men earn, which might explain the poverty. What it does: Provides a potential cause for the problem introduced in sentence 1. Source/Type: Author's analysis connecting wage data to the poverty problem Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds directly on sentence 1 by offering an explanation. The word "This problem" explicitly connects back to the poverty issue. Visualization: Men's wages: $100 Women's wages: $60 Result: Single mothers struggle financially Reading Strategy Insight: The phrase "could result from" shows this is exploratory - the author is beginning to investigate causes, not stating definitive facts. What We Know So Far: Single mothers face poverty + women earn 60% of men's wages What We Don't Know Yet: If this wage gap fully explains the poverty, what solutions might work |
| Some economists believe that rigorous enforcement of existing equal pay laws would substantially decrease this wage inequity. | What it says: One group of economists thinks better enforcement of current laws could reduce the wage gap. What it does: Introduces the first proposed solution to address the wage inequity. Source/Type: Economists' opinion/recommendation Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 2's wage gap by proposing a solution. "This wage inequity" refers directly back to the 60% figure. Visualization: Current: Women earn 60% of men's wages With better law enforcement: Women might earn closer to 100% of men's wages Expected result: Less poverty among single mothers Reading Strategy Insight: Notice how the passage is building logically: Problem → Cause → Solution #1. This is a classic RC structure that becomes predictable once you recognize it. What We Know So Far: Problem + potential cause + first proposed solution What We Don't Know Yet: Whether this solution has limitations or if other solutions exist |
| But equal pay laws are ineffectual when women and men are concentrated in different occupations because such laws require only that women and men doing the same jobs be paid the same. | What it says: Equal pay laws don't work when men and women work in different types of jobs because these laws only help people doing identical work. What it does: Points out a limitation of the first proposed solution. Source/Type: Author's explanation of legal/structural limitation Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts with sentence 3 by showing why the economists' solution might not work well. The word "But" signals this contrast. Visualization: Scenario: Male engineers earn $80,000, Female nurses earn $50,000 Equal pay laws: Can only compare people in same job Result: Laws cannot address this wage gap Reading Strategy Insight: The "But" signals a limitation, not a completely new topic. This is still about solving the wage problem - just pointing out why solution #1 has problems. What We Know So Far: Problem + cause + solution #1 + limitation of solution #1 What We Don't Know Yet: Evidence for this limitation, alternative solutions |
| Since gender concentration exists (for example, 80 percent of clerical workers are women), other economists argue that a comparable worth standard, which would mandate that women and men in any jobs that require comparable training and responsibility be paid the same, should be applied instead. | What it says: Because job segregation is real (like 80% of office workers being women), a second group of economists wants a different approach that compares different jobs requiring similar skills. What it does: Provides evidence for the limitation mentioned in sentence 4, then introduces solution #2. Source/Type: Statistical evidence + second group of economists' recommendation Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 4's concern about job segregation by providing a concrete example (80% clerical workers), then offers an alternative to the solution from sentence 3. Visualization: Job segregation reality: 80% of clerical workers = women Comparable worth approach: Compare clerk (requiring high school diploma) to warehouse worker (requiring high school diploma) Goal: Equal pay for jobs requiring similar qualifications, even if jobs are different Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this isn't adding complexity! It's just giving us solution #2 to replace the problematic solution #1. The structure remains: Problem → Cause → Solution #1 → Problems with #1 → Solution #2. What We Know So Far: Problem + cause + solution #1 + its limitation + evidence for limitation + solution #2 What We Don't Know Yet: Whether solution #2 has any problems |
| But some policy analysts assert that, although comparable worth would virtually equalize male and female wages, many single parent families headed by women would remain in poverty because many men earn wages that are below the poverty line. | What it says: A third group points out that even if solution #2 worked perfectly and eliminated the wage gap, single mothers would still be poor because many men also earn poverty-level wages. What it does: Identifies a fundamental limitation with both previous solutions by revealing a deeper issue. Source/Type: Policy analysts' critique Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts with the assumption behind both previous solutions - that equalizing wages would solve the poverty problem. The word "But" again signals this contrast. Visualization: If solution #2 works perfectly: Women's wages = Men's wages Reality check: Many men also earn below poverty line (say $15,000/year) Result: Single mothers still earn poverty wages, just equal poverty wages Reading Strategy Insight: This "But" reveals that both solution #1 and #2 miss a bigger point - the problem isn't just inequality, it's that wages overall are too low for single parents. What We Know So Far: Problem + cause + solution #1 + limitation + solution #2 + limitation of solution #2 What We Don't Know Yet: What the third group proposes instead |
| These policy analysts believe that the problem is not caused primarily by wage inequity but rather by low wages coupled with single parent hood, regardless of sex. | What it says: The third group thinks the real problem is low wages combined with being a single parent, affecting both men and women. What it does: Reframes the entire problem by shifting focus from gender inequality to the broader issue of low wages for single parents. Source/Type: Policy analysts' alternative interpretation of the root cause Connection to Previous Sentences: This restates and clarifies the insight from sentence 6. Instead of focusing on wage gaps between genders, it identifies the core issue as insufficient wages for any single parent. Visualization: Old focus: Men earn $100, women earn $60 → fix the gap New focus: Single parents need $80 to avoid poverty, but many jobs (male or female) pay only $50 → fix the insufficient wages Reading Strategy Insight: This is simplification, not new complexity! The analysts are saying: "Forget about complicated gender wage gaps - the real issue is simpler: single parents don't earn enough, period." What We Know So Far: Problem + two wage-gap solutions + fundamental critique + reframed understanding What We Don't Know Yet: What solution the third group proposes |
| As a solution, they challenge the government's assumption that a family's income should depend primarily on wages and urge the government to provide generous wage supplements (child and housing allowances) to single parents whose wages are low. | What it says: The third group proposes that government should supplement low wages with additional money for housing and childcare rather than expecting wages alone to support families. What it does: Presents solution #3, which addresses the reframed problem from sentence 7. Source/Type: Policy analysts' recommendation Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds directly on sentence 7's reframed problem by offering a solution that addresses low wages plus single parenthood rather than just gender wage gaps. Visualization: Current approach: Job pays $50 → family tries to survive on $50 Proposed approach: Job pays $50 + government adds $30 housing allowance + $20 child allowance = $100 total income Result: Single parents can avoid poverty regardless of gender wage gaps Reading Strategy Insight: Notice how this solution elegantly sidesteps the entire wage gap debate by saying: "Let's just make sure single parents have enough money, however we need to do it." What We Know So Far: Complete argument with problem, three different approaches, and three corresponding solutions Final Structure: Problem → Wage gap cause → Equal pay solution → Job segregation limitation → Comparable worth solution → Low wages limitation → Reframed problem → Supplement solution |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To examine different approaches to solving poverty among single-mother families by presenting three competing solutions and showing how each group of experts views the problem differently.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their analysis by systematically walking through a problem-solution debate:
- First, the author identifies the core problem (poverty among single mothers) and suggests it might be caused by women earning less than men
- Next, the author presents the first proposed solution (enforce equal pay laws) but immediately shows why it won't work due to job segregation
- Then, the author introduces a second solution (comparable worth standards) that tries to fix the problems with the first approach
- Finally, the author presents a third group that rejects both wage-focused solutions and argues for a completely different approach using government supplements
Main Point:
There are three fundamentally different ways to tackle poverty among single mothers: fixing gender pay gaps, creating fair pay across different jobs, or having the government supplement low wages directly. The debate shows that the real disagreement is whether the problem is about unfair pay between men and women or simply that wages are too low for any single parent to survive on.
Question Analysis:
This question asks what the passage suggests about the US government's current policy toward providing wage supplements to low-wage parents. We need to identify what the passage implies about the government's existing approach, not what policy analysts recommend the government should do.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, the key insight comes from the final sentence where policy analysts \"challenge the government's assumption that a family's income should depend primarily on wages.\" This reveals that:
- The government currently operates under a specific assumption about family income sources
- Policy analysts are critiquing this assumption
- The government's current approach is based on the idea that wages should be the primary income source
- The analysts want the government to provide \"generous wage supplements\" - implying this isn't currently happening
Prethinking:
The passage structure shows us a progression from wage-focused solutions to a fundamental challenge of government assumptions. The policy analysts don't just propose a new solution - they explicitly \"challenge the government's assumption\" about how family income should work. This suggests the government's current policy (or lack thereof regarding supplements) is based on the assumption that families should primarily rely on wages rather than government assistance.
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage only mentions "some economists" and "some policy analysts" - we have no information about what "most economists" think
• The passage doesn't indicate widespread economic consensus against wage supplements
• The focus is on describing different approaches, not on measuring which has more support
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Assuming that because multiple groups are mentioned, there must be a majority opinion?
→ Focus on what the passage actually states about each group's size and influence
2. Confusing the number of solutions presented with the level of support each has?
→ Remember that RC passages often present multiple viewpoints without indicating which is more popular
Why It's Right:
• The passage explicitly states that policy analysts "challenge the government's assumption that a family's income should depend primarily on wages"
• This directly indicates the government's policy is based on specific assumptions about income sources
• The word "assumption" shows these are underlying beliefs that guide current policy
• The analysts' critique reveals what the government currently believes about family income
Key Evidence: "As a solution, they challenge the government's assumption that a family's income should depend primarily on wages and urge the government to provide generous wage supplements"
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage presents policy analysts' recommendations but gives no indication the government is actually changing its approach
• "Challenge" and "urge" suggest the analysts are trying to influence policy, not that revision is underway
• There's no evidence of government response or policy changes in progress
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Assuming that when experts make recommendations, policy changes automatically follow?
→ Distinguish between what experts propose and what government actually does
2. Confusing "challenging" assumptions with successfully changing policy?
→ Note that challenges and critiques don't necessarily lead to immediate policy revisions
Why It's Wrong:
• This describes what comparable worth policies might accomplish, not what government wage supplement policies could do
• The passage indicates that wage supplements would help address poverty regardless of wage inequality
• This choice confuses the effects of different proposed solutions
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Mixing up the outcomes of different solutions presented in the passage?
→ Keep track of which group proposes what and what each solution is supposed to achieve
2. Focusing on wage equality solutions when the question asks about supplement policies?
→ Remember that the final solution explicitly moves away from wage equality approaches
Why It's Wrong:
• The policy analysts propose wage supplements for "single parents whose wages are low" - this includes both men and women
• The passage specifically mentions the problem affects single parenthood "regardless of sex"
• The solution is designed for all single parents, not just those headed by women
Common Student Mistakes:
1. Assuming that because the passage starts with single mothers, all solutions only apply to women?
→ Track how the analysis evolves to include all single parents by the end
2. Missing the policy analysts' shift from gender-focused to parent-focused solutions?
→ Notice how the final group reframes the problem as affecting single parents of any gender