Reading Comprehension

In 1938, at the government-convened National Health Conference, organized labor emerged as a major proponent of legislation to guarantee universal health care in the United States. The American Medical Association, representing physicians' interests, argued for preserving physicians' free-market prerogatives. Labor activists countered these arguments by insisting that health care was a fundamental right that should be guaranteed by government programs.

The labor activists' position represented a departure from the voluntarist view held until 1935 by leaders of the American Federation of labor (AFL), a leading affiliation of labor unions; the voluntarist view stressed workers' right to freedom from government intrusions into their lives and represented national health insurance as a threat to workers' privacy. AFL president Samuel Gompers, presuming to speak for all workers, had positioned the AFL as a leading opponent of the proposals for national health insurance that were advocated beginning in 1915 by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL), an organization dedicated to the study and reform of labor laws. Gompers' opposition to national health insurance was partly principled, arising from the premise that governments under capitalism invariably served employers', not workers', interests. Gompers feared the probing of government bureaucrats into workers' lives, as well as the possibility that government-mandated health insurance, financed in part by employers, could permit companies to require employee medical examinations that might be used to discharge disabled workers.

Yet the AFL's voluntarism had accommodated certain exceptions: the AFL had supported government intervention on behalf of injured workers and child laborers. AFL officials drew the line at national health insurance, however, partly out of concern for their own power. The fact that AFL outsiders such as the AALL had taken the most prominent advocacy roles antagonized Gompers. That this reform threatened union-sponsored benefit programs championed by Gompers made national health insurance even more objectionable.

Indeed, the AFL leadership did face serious organizational divisions. Many unionists, recognizing that union-run health programs covered only a small fraction of union members and that unions represented only a fraction of the nation's workforce, worked to enact compulsory health insurance in their state legislatures. This activism and the views underlying it came to prevail in the United States labor movement and in 1935 the AFL unequivocally reversed its position on health legislation.

1) The passage suggests which of the following about the voluntarist view held by leaders of the AFL regarding health care?
(A) It was opposed by the AALL.
(B) It was shared by most unionists until 1935.
(C) It antagonized the American Medical Association.
(D) It maintained that employer-sponsored health care was preferable to union-run health programs.
(E) It was based on the premise that the government should protect child laborers but not adult workers.
[spoiler]OA:A[/spoiler]

3) Which of the following best describes the function of the sentence in lines 42-45 ("Yet ... child laborers")?
(A) It elaborates a point about why the AFL advocated a voluntarist approach to health insurance.
(B) It identifies issues on which the AFL took a view opposed to that of the AALL.
(C) It introduces evidence that appears to be inconsistent with the voluntarist view held by AFL leaders.
(D) It suggests that a view described in the previous sentence is based on faulty evidence.
(E) It indicates why a contradiction described in the previous paragraph has been overlooked by historians.
[spoiler]OA:C[/spoiler]

My explanation of passage in points

P1: In 1938, at the government-convened NHC. The American Medical Association argued for preserving physicians' free-market prerogatives. Labor activists countered them.
P2: AFL president Samuel Gompers opposed the proposals for national health insurance. Gompers' opposition to national health insurance was partly principled
P3: AFL's voluntarism had accommodated certain exception but drew the line at national health insurance, however, partly out of concern for their own power.
P4: AFL unequivocally reversed its position on health legislation.

Got 1 and 3 wrong

1) The passage suggests which of the following about the voluntarist view held by leaders of the AFL regarding health care?
(A) It was opposed by the AALL.
(AFL president Samuel Gompers had positioned the AFL as a leading opponent of the proposals for national health insurance that were advocated beginning in 1915 by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL).
I understand that AFL opposes AALL. but opposite is the option A.)
(B) It was shared by most unionists until 1935.(The labor activists' position represented a departure from the voluntarist view held until 1935 by leaders of the American Federation of labor (AFL).)
(C) It antagonized the American Medical Association.(This is only mentioned in 1st para.wrong)
(D) It maintained that employer-sponsored health care was preferable to union-run health programs.(No such preference is mentioned)
(E) It was based on the premise that the government should protect child laborers but not adult workers.(adult workers is not mentioned)

Why A is right and B is wrong?

3) Which of the following best describes the function of the sentence in lines 42-45 ("Yet ... child laborers")?
(A) It elaborates a point about why the AFL advocated a voluntarist approach to health insurance.(No such explanation)
(B) It identifies issues on which the AFL took a view opposed to that of the AALL.(not opp but supportive as well)
(C) It introduces evidence that appears to be inconsistent with the voluntarist view held by AFL leaders.
(D) It suggests that a view described in the previous sentence is based on faulty evidence.
(E) It indicates why a contradiction described in the previous paragraph has been overlooked by historians.

could not understand C, D and E options clearly. can someone explain?

In 1938, at the government-convened National Health Conference, organized labor emerged as a major proponent of legislation to guarantee universal health care in the United States. The American Medical Association, representing physicians' interests, argued for preserving physicians' free-market prerogatives. Labor activists countered these arguments by insisting that health care was a fundamental right that should be guaranteed by government programs.

The labor activists' position represented a departure from the voluntarist view held until 1935 by leaders of the American Federation of labor (AFL), a leading affiliation of labor unions; the voluntarist view stressed workers' right to freedom from government intrusions into their lives and represented national health insurance as a threat to workers' privacy. AFL president Samuel Gompers, presuming to speak for all workers, had positioned the AFL as a leading opponent of the proposals for national health insurance that were advocated beginning in 1915 by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL), an organization dedicated to the study and reform of labor laws. Gompers' opposition to national health insurance was partly principled, arising from the premise that governments under capitalism invariably served employers', not workers', interests. Gompers feared the probing of government bureaucrats into workers' lives, as well as the possibility that government-mandated health insurance, financed in part by employers, could permit companies to require employee medical examinations that might be used to discharge disabled workers.

Yet the AFL's voluntarism had accommodated certain exceptions: the AFL had supported government intervention on behalf of injured workers and child laborers. AFL officials drew the line at national health insurance, however, partly out of concern for their own power. The fact that AFL outsiders such as the AALL had taken the most prominent advocacy roles antagonized Gompers. That this reform threatened union-sponsored benefit programs championed by Gompers made national health insurance even more objectionable.

Indeed, the AFL leadership did face serious organizational divisions. Many unionists, recognizing that union-run health programs covered only a small fraction of union members and that unions represented only a fraction of the nation's workforce, worked to enact compulsory health insurance in their state legislatures. This activism and the views underlying it came to prevail in the United States labor movement and in 1935 the AFL unequivocally reversed its position on health legislation.

1) The passage suggests which of the following about the voluntarist view held by leaders of the AFL regarding health care?
(A) It was opposed by the AALL.
(B) It was shared by most unionists until 1935.
(C) It antagonized the American Medical Association.
(D) It maintained that employer-sponsored health care was preferable to union-run health programs.
(E) It was based on the premise that the government should protect child laborers but not adult workers.

First, let's find the part of the passage that defines the voluntarist view held by the AFL leaders. It shows up in paragraph 2: the voluntarist view stressed workers' right to freedom from government intrusions into their lives and represented national health insurance as a threat to workers' privacy. Okay, so the voluntarists are against national health insurance. Now let's go to the answer choices.

A) Let's scan the passage for something about the AALL. The first mention occurs in paragraph 2. AFL president Samuel Gompers, presuming to speak for all workers, had positioned the AFL as a leading opponent of the proposals for national health insurance that were advocated beginning in 1915 by the American Association for Labor Legislation (AALL), an organization dedicated to the study and reform of labor laws. So the AFL, which holds the voluntarist view, is an opponent of the national health insurance proposals that were advocated by the AALL. Seems pretty clear that the AALL isn't on board with the voluntarist philosophy, so A is correct.

Why A is right and B is wrong?

Answer choice B: It was shared by most unionists until 1935.

Pay close attention to the language. The voluntarist view was held by the leaders of one particular union. We cannot conclude from this that most unionists, in general, held the voluntarist view.

DavidG@VeritasPrep wrote:

Why A is right and B is wrong?

Answer choice B: It was shared by most unionists until 1935.

Pay close attention to the language. The voluntarist view was held by the leaders of one particular union. We cannot conclude from this that most unionists, in general, held the voluntarist view.

.

Thank you very much David.
can you please answer the other question listed above as well.
I could not understand what is he referring to in options D and E.

Thank you very much David.
can you please answer the other question listed as well.
I could not understand what is he referring to in options D and E.

3) Which of the following best describes the function of the sentence in lines 42-45 ("Yet ... child laborers")?
(A) It elaborates a point about why the AFL advocated a voluntarist approach to health insurance.
(B) It identifies issues on which the AFL took a view opposed to that of the AALL.
(C) It introduces evidence that appears to be inconsistent with the voluntarist view held by AFL leaders.
(D) It suggests that a view described in the previous sentence is based on faulty evidence.
(E) It indicates why a contradiction described in the previous paragraph has been overlooked by historians.

First, let's examine that sentence: Yet the AFL's voluntarism had accommodated certain exceptions: the AFL had supported government intervention on behalf of injured workers and child laborers.


The sentence begins with "yet," suggesting that this is going to contradict something we read earlier. In the previous paragraph we saw this: the voluntarist view stressed workers' right to freedom from government intrusions into their lives

So the AFL, whose leaders supported volunteerism, was typically opposed to government intervention. But in the highlighted sentence, we see that there were instances in which they supported government intervention. Because this appears to be inconsistent with their voluntarist views, C is the correct answer.

D is incorrect because there's no suggestion that any views were based on faulty evidence. The AFL genuinely was afraid of government intervention in general, and we have no reason to believe that this fear was rooted in flawed evidence.

E is incorrect because there's no reason to believe that historians have overlooked this seeming inconsistency in the AFL's views.