Some historians contend that conditions in the United States during the Second World War gave rise to a dynamic wartime...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Some historians contend that conditions in the United States during the Second World War gave rise to a dynamic wartime alliance between trade unions and the African American community, an alliance that advanced the cause of civil rights. They conclude that the postwar demise of this vital alliance constituted a lost opportunity for the civil rights movement that followed the war. Other scholars, however, have portrayed organized labor as defending all along the relatively privileged position of White workers relative to African American workers. Clearly, these two perspectives are not easily reconcilable, but the historical reality is not reducible to one or the other.
Unions faced a choice between either maintaining the prewar status quo or promoting a more inclusive approach that sought for all members the right to participate in the internal affairs of unions, access to skilled and high-paying positions within the occupational hierarchy, and protection against management's arbitrary authority in the workplace. While union representatives often voiced this inclusive ideal, in practice unions far more often favored entrenched interests. The accelerating development of the civil rights movement following the Second World War exacerbated the unions' dilemma, forcing trade unionists to confront contradictions in their own practices.
The passage is primarily concerned with
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Some historians contend that conditions in the United States during the Second World War gave rise to a dynamic wartime alliance between trade unions and the African American community, an alliance that advanced the cause of civil rights. | What it says: Some historians believe that during WWII, labor unions and African Americans worked together, and this partnership helped civil rights progress. What it does: Introduces the first perspective on union-African American relations during WWII Source/Type: Historians' claim (not the author's direct opinion) Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous information to connect to Visualization: Imagine 100 historians studying WWII labor relations. Some portion of them (let's say 40) believe: Unions + African Americans = Strong Alliance = Civil Rights Progress What We Know So Far: One group of historians sees WWII as creating positive union-African American cooperation What We Don't Know Yet: Do all historians agree? What happened after the war? |
| They conclude that the postwar demise of this vital alliance constituted a lost opportunity for the civil rights movement that followed the war. | What it says: These same historians think when the partnership ended after the war, it was a missed chance for civil rights. What it does: Extends the first historians' argument by showing what they think happened next Source/Type: Continuation of the same historians' claims Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds directly on sentence 1 - the SAME historians are now telling us what they think happened when the war ended. This is elaboration, not new complexity. Visualization: Those same 40 historians see a timeline: WWII (Strong Alliance) → Post-War (Alliance Dies) → Missed Opportunity for Civil Rights Movement Reading Strategy Insight: Don't panic - we're still with the same group of historians. They're just completing their story about what happened before, during, and after the war. |
| Other scholars, however, have portrayed organized labor as defending all along the relatively privileged position of White workers relative to African American workers. | What it says: Different scholars believe unions always just protected white workers' advantages over African American workers. What it does: Introduces a contrasting perspective on union behavior Source/Type: Different scholars' claims Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts with sentences 1-2. The word "however" signals opposition. Where the first historians saw cooperation and alliance, these scholars see unions protecting white privilege. Visualization: Our remaining 60 historians see unions differently: Unions = Always Protected White Workers > African American Workers (no real alliance ever existed) What We Know So Far: Two competing views about unions and African Americans during/after WWII What We Don't Know Yet: Which view does the author support? Can both be partially true? |
| Clearly, these two perspectives are not easily reconcilable, but the historical reality is not reducible to one or the other. | What it says: These two views are hard to put together, but the truth isn't just one or the other. What it does: Author steps in to acknowledge the conflict and suggest both views capture some truth Source/Type: Author's direct opinion and analysis Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the author helping us! Instead of making us choose between the two historian groups, the author is saying "both have merit but neither tells the whole story." Visualization: Think of a complex historical situation where: Group 1 historians capture 60% of the truth + Group 2 historians capture 40% of the truth = More complete picture Reading Strategy Insight: Feel relieved here - this is simplification, not new complexity. The author is helping us see we don't have to pick sides. |
| Unions faced a choice between either maintaining the prewar status quo or promoting a more inclusive approach that sought for all members the right to participate in the internal affairs of unions, access to skilled and high-paying positions within the occupational hierarchy, and protection against management's arbitrary authority in the workplace. | What it says: Unions had to decide: keep things the same as before the war, or become more inclusive by giving all members equal rights to participate, access good jobs, and protection from unfair management. What it does: Begins the author's explanation of the more complex reality Source/Type: Author's analysis of the historical situation Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on "historical reality is not reducible to one or the other" by starting to show us what that complex reality looked like. The author is giving us specifics about the choice unions faced. Visualization: Picture unions at a fork in the road: Path A: Status Quo (maintain pre-war inequalities) Path B: Inclusion (equal union participation + equal job access + equal protection) Reading Strategy Insight: The author is setting up the framework for understanding why both historian groups captured some truth. |
| While union representatives often voiced this inclusive ideal, in practice unions far more often favored entrenched interests. | What it says: Union leaders talked about being inclusive, but in reality they usually supported the old established interests. What it does: Reveals the gap between union rhetoric and union actions Source/Type: Author's analysis of union behavior Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly answers what unions did with the choice described in sentence 5. Now we see why both historian groups were partially right: unions talked inclusive (supporting view 1) but acted to protect established interests (supporting view 2). Visualization: Union Representatives: 80% of their words = "Inclusion and equality!" Union Actions: 80% of their decisions = Protecting established (white) interests Reading Strategy Insight: The author is showing us how both perspectives can be true simultaneously - this explains rather than complicates the earlier disagreement. |
| The accelerating development of the civil rights movement following the Second World War exacerbated the unions' dilemma, forcing trade unionists to confront contradictions in their own practices. | What it says: As the civil rights movement grew stronger after WWII, it made the unions' problem worse and forced them to face the contradictions in what they said versus what they did. What it does: Shows how external pressure intensified the union contradictions Source/Type: Author's analysis of post-war developments Connection to Previous Sentences: This restates and reinforces the author's main point about union contradictions. The growing civil rights movement made it harder for unions to maintain the gap between inclusive rhetoric and exclusive actions. Visualization: Timeline: WWII ends → Civil Rights Movement grows stronger and more demanding → Union contradictions become impossible to ignore → Unions forced to choose more clearly Reading Strategy Insight: This is the conclusion that ties everything together. The author has shown us why the historical reality was complex and why both historian groups captured part of the truth. Final Understanding: Unions weren't simply allies (view 1) or simply obstructionist (view 2) - they were internally contradicted institutions forced to choose between competing pressures. |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain why two competing views about unions and African Americans during World War II are both partially correct by showing that unions had internal contradictions between their stated ideals and their actual practices.
Summary of Passage Structure:
The author builds their argument by reconciling two opposing historical perspectives:
- First, the author presents one group of historians who believe unions and African Americans formed a strong alliance during WWII that helped civil rights, but this alliance ended after the war and became a missed opportunity.
- Next, the author introduces a different group of scholars who argue that unions always just protected white workers' advantages over African American workers.
- Then, the author steps in to say both views capture some truth but neither tells the complete story, and begins explaining the more complex reality by describing the choice unions faced between keeping things the same or becoming more inclusive.
- Finally, the author reveals that while union leaders talked about inclusion, they usually acted to protect established interests, and this contradiction became harder to maintain as the civil rights movement grew stronger after the war.
Main Point:
Unions were not simply allies or enemies of African Americans, but rather contradictory organizations that spoke about inclusion while usually acting to protect existing advantages for white workers, and this internal contradiction became more difficult to maintain as the civil rights movement gained strength after World War II.
1. Question Analysis:
The question asks us to identify what the passage is "primarily concerned with" - meaning we need to understand the overall purpose and main focus of the entire passage, not just individual details.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our analysis, we can see the passage follows a clear structure:
- First, it presents one group of historians' perspective about wartime alliance between unions and African Americans
- Then it introduces a contrasting view from other scholars who see unions as always protecting white privilege
- The author steps in to say both views capture some truth but neither tells the complete story
- Finally, the author provides context explaining why both perspectives are partially correct by showing the contradictory nature of union behavior
The key insight from our analysis is that the author is not taking sides or dismissing either view, but rather "providing a context within which to evaluate" why both perspectives have merit. The author explains the complex historical reality that allows us to understand how both historian groups could reach their different conclusions.
Prethinking:
The passage structure shows the author's main concern is helping us understand the competing viewpoints by providing the historical context (unions' internal contradictions) that explains why both perspectives exist. This points toward an answer choice about evaluating or contextualizing opposing viewpoints rather than simply supporting one interpretation or discussing evidence.
Why It's Right:
• The passage presents two opposing historical perspectives about union-African American relations during WWII
• The author doesn't dismiss either view but provides historical context (union contradictions) that helps evaluate both
• The passage structure moves from presenting opposing viewpoints to providing framework for understanding why both exist
Key Evidence: "Clearly, these two perspectives are not easily reconcilable, but the historical reality is not reducible to one or the other." This directly shows the author providing context to evaluate opposing views.
Why It's Wrong:
• The author doesn't identify one interpretation as fundamentally flawed
• Both historical perspectives are treated as having merit, not as having flawed assumptions
• The author's approach is reconciling rather than criticizing
Common Student Mistakes:
- Does the author criticize one of the historian groups?
→ No, the author says both capture some truth but neither tells the whole story - Is the author pointing out errors in reasoning?
→ No, the author is explaining why both reasonable perspectives exist simultaneously
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't focus on merits and weaknesses of one theory
• The author treats both perspectives as having value, not as controversial
• The emphasis is on reconciling viewpoints, not critiquing a single theory
Common Student Mistakes:
- Is the author analyzing one specific theory in detail?
→ No, the author addresses two competing perspectives equally - Does "controversial" accurately describe the author's tone?
→ No, the tone is analytical and reconciling, not focused on controversy
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't focus on the importance of the wartime alliance itself
• The author's main concern is explaining competing interpretations, not the alliance's significance
• Historical importance is not the central theme
Common Student Mistakes:
- Since the passage mentions wartime alliance, isn't that the main focus?
→ No, the alliance is mentioned as part of one historian's view, not as the passage's central concern - Doesn't the author discuss historical developments?
→ Yes, but only to provide context for understanding the competing interpretations
Why It's Wrong:
• The passage doesn't focus on evaluating specific evidence
• The author doesn't support one particular interpretation over another
• The emphasis is on contextualizing multiple interpretations, not championing one
Common Student Mistakes:
- Does the author provide historical details as evidence?
→ Yes, but the purpose is to contextualize both interpretations, not support just one - Isn't the author making an argument?
→ Yes, but the argument is that both perspectives have merit and need context to understand