While acknowledging that there are greater employment opportunities for Latin American women in cities than in the countryside, social science...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
While acknowledging that there are greater employment opportunities for Latin American women in cities than in the countryside, social science theorists have continued to argue that urban migration has unequivocally hurt women's status. However, the effects of migration are more complex than these theorists presume. For example, effects can vary depending on women's financial condition and social class.
Brazilian women in the lowest socioeconomic class have relatively greater job opportunities and job security in cities than do men of the same class, although there is no compelling evidence that for these women the move to the city is a move out of poverty. Thus, these women may improve their status in relation to men but at the same time may experience no improvement in their economic standing.
In addition, working outside the home, which is more common in urban than in rural areas, helps women in the lowest socioeconomic class make contacts to extend exchange networks-the flow of gifts, loans, or child care from those who currently have access to resources to those who do not. Moreover, poor women working in urban areas actively seek to cultivate long-term employer-employee relations. When an emergency arises that requires greater resources than an exchange network can provide, these women often appeal for and receive aid from their wealthy employers. However, the structure of many poor women's work-often a labor force of one in an employer's home-makes it difficult for them to organize to improve their economic conditions in general.
Not surprisingly, then, Latin American women in the lowest socioeconomic class differ in their opinions about the effects of urban migration on their lives. Some find urban living, with access to electricity and running water, an improvement and would never return to the countryside. Others, disliking the overcrowding and crime, would return to the countryside if there were work opportunities for them there.
Thus, urban life has had both negative and positive impacts on women's lives. In general, urban migration has not provided economic prosperity or upward mobility for women in the lowest socioeconomic class, despite their intelligent and energetic utilization of the resources available to them.
In the first paragraph, the author refers to the experiences of Brazilian women most probably in order to
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| While acknowledging that there are greater employment opportunities for Latin American women in cities than in the countryside, social science theorists have continued to argue that urban migration has unequivocally hurt women's status. | What it says: Researchers admit cities have more jobs for women, but still claim moving to cities has only hurt women's overall position in society. What it does: Sets up the existing academic position that the author will challenge Source/Type: Social science theorists' claims Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous sentences to connect to Visualization: Rural jobs for women: 20 opportunities Urban jobs for women: 100 opportunities But theorists say: Urban migration = negative impact on women's status Reading Strategy Insight: This sentence sets up a contrast structure. The word "while" signals we're about to see the author disagree with these theorists. What We Know So Far: Cities have more jobs for women, but theorists think migration hurts women What We Don't Know Yet: What the author thinks, what evidence exists |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To challenge the oversimplified view that urban migration only hurts Latin American women by showing that the effects are actually much more complicated, with both benefits and drawbacks depending on various factors.
Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify the author's purpose in referring to Brazilian women's experiences in the first paragraph. We need to understand how this example functions within the author's overall argument structure.
Prethinking:
The Brazilian women example serves as proof that migration effects are "more complex" than the theorists' "unequivocal" negative assessment. It shows simultaneous benefits and limitations, which supports the author's argument that the effects "cannot be easily characterized" as simply positive or negative. The example illustrates the complexity thesis with concrete evidence.
Why It's Wrong:
- The author disagrees with social science theorists, not supporting them
- The Brazilian example shows benefits (better opportunities than men), which contradicts theorists' claim that migration "unequivocally hurt women's status"
- The passage structure shows "However" introducing disagreement with theorists
Why It's Wrong:
- This focuses only on the negative aspect while ignoring that the example shows both positive and negative effects
- The Brazilian example demonstrates benefits (job security, opportunities) alongside limitations
- The author uses this example to show complexity, not simple failure
Why It's Right:
- The example directly supports the thesis that effects are "more complex than these theorists presume"
- It demonstrates the complexity by showing simultaneous benefits and limitations
- This proves that migration effects "cannot be easily characterized" as simply positive or negative
- The example illustrates how effects vary by social class, matching the complexity argument
Key Evidence: "However, the effects of migration are more complex than these theorists presume. For example, effects can vary depending on women's financial condition and social class. Brazilian women in the lowest socioeconomic class have relatively greater job opportunities...although there is no compelling evidence that for these women the move to the city is a move out of poverty."
Why It's Wrong:
- Too narrow - the example isn't just about economic status but about proving complexity
- Misses the main function which is to support the "more complex" thesis
- The author's purpose is to challenge oversimplified views, not just illustrate economic effects
Why It's Wrong:
- Too narrow focus on gender comparison rather than the complexity argument
- The comparison with men is just one detail within the larger point about complex effects
- Misses the main purpose of supporting the "more complex" thesis