-
Target Test Prep 20% Off Flash Sale is on! Code: FLASH20
Redeem
GMATPrep Reading Comp: Tackling a Tough Passage - Part 2
In the first installment of this series, we deconstructed a challenging Reading Comprehension passage from the GMATPrep free exams. Pull up that page, as Im not going to repeat the full text of the passage here.
I also gave you the first problem to try. Lets talk about it now!
Heres the problem again:
* It can be inferred from the passage that application of other mandates (see highlighted text) would be unlikely to result in an outcome satisfactory to the female employees in which of the following situations?I. Males employed as long-distance truck drivers for a furniture company make $3.50 more per hour than do females with comparable job experience employed in the same capacity.
II. Women working in the office of a cement company content that their jobs are as demanding and valuable as those of the men working outside in the cement factory, but the women are paid much less per hour.
III. A law firm employs both male and female paralegals with the same educational and career backgrounds, but the starting salary for male paralegals is $5,000 more than for female paralegals.
(A) I only
(B) II only
(C) III only
(D) I and II only
(E) I and III only
If you recall, I was pretty annoyed by this problem. Roman numeral questions are always long and the three statements here are pretty complex. Dont just dive into a question like this; decide whether its even worth your time in the first place.
If youre going to do this problem, then its going to be crucial to make sure that you understand the question before going to the statements.
First, this is an inference question. Inference questions require you to figure out what must be true based upon some evidence presented in the passage.
Step two is to find the proof in the passage. Luckily, they highlighted the relevant text in the passage, so you know exactly where to go. Wait a second, though. Make sure you understand the question before you jump to this text.
Glance at the statements. Dont read completely or try to understand them. Just articulate to yourself what kind of info they contain.
They seem to be describing very specific scenarios that werent at all talked about in the passage. I guess these are hypothetical scenarios that Im going to have to think about somehow.
Go back to the question stem to see how you have to think about the scenarios.
application of other mandates
hmmapplication of this thing Im going to read about in the passage
would be unlikely to result in an outcome satisfactory to the female employees in which of the following situations?
Okay, theyre going to describe something in this text Im about to read, and applying that something to the scenarios (in the roman numerals) would not be satisfactory to the female employees. So in this text Im about to read, I need to be able to infer something about female employees in particular.
Step three: time to read that text and try to articulate my own answer. I need to read enough to understand how female employees would be affected.
Heres the relevant text from the passage:
Comparable worth pay adjustments are indeed precedent-setting. Because of the principles driving them, other mandates that can be applied to reduce or eliminate unjustified pay gaps between male and female workers have not remedied perceived pay inequities satisfactorily for the litigants in cases in which men and women hold different jobs. But whenever comparable worth principles are applied to pay schedules, perceived unjustified pay differences are eliminated.
Put this all in the context of the overall point of the passage: CW did / does make a difference in alleviating the pay gap.
Other mandates means other things besides CW. But those things have not remedied perceived pay inequities satisfactorily when men and women hold different jobs. BUT CW did actually help in that situation.
Okay. So the other stuff, whatever it is, doesnt really work when youre talking about different jobs for the male and female employees involved. That would definitely be considered an unsatisfactory outcome for the female employees, so I need to look for scenarios in which the employees have different jobs.
Finally! I can go back to the statements.
I. Males employed as long-distance truck drivers for a furniture company make $3.50 more per hour than do females with comparable job experience employed in the same capacity.
"Employed in the same capacity = the same job, so this doesnt fit what Im looking for. Im looking for situations in which the employees do not have the same kind of job.
Wow. I can eliminate answers (A), (D), and (E) based on this statement alone. (Note: this made me second-guess myself. Did I understand the question properly? So I re-read the question and confirmed that, yes, I really did understand and now Im confident that this one is not right.)
II. Women working in the office of a cement company content that their jobs are as demanding and valuable as those of the men working outside in the cement factory, but the women are paid much less per hour.
Different jobsoffice vs. factory. If the other methods (not CW) are used here, then the women arent likely to be happy with the outcome. This one works. Eliminate answer (C).
Only answer (B) is left. Lets check the third statement just in case.
III. A law firm employs both male and female paralegals with the same educational and career backgrounds, but the starting salary for male paralegals is $5,000 more than for female paralegals.
Same job. Nope, this ones wrong, too. Statement II is the only one that fits the different job criterion.
The correct answer is (B).
This problem required a lot of careful upfront work. If that is done well, then the statements arent that bad. The trick is that you actually have really understand both the convoluted question and the relevant text in the passage so that you can pick out the one key detail: these other methods dont work well when the male and female employees have different jobs.
It would be really easy to get lost in either the question or the passage on this one, in which case, dont push on. You already know this is a crazy one, by virtue of the roman numeral set-up. So if the question, or passage, or both are just too much, roll your eyes that they actually expected someone to do that much work, pick your favorite letter, and dont look back. Dive right into the next problem.
Speaking of, here is the second question!
According to the passage, which of the following is true of comparable worth as a policy?(A) Comparable worth policy decisions in pay-inequity cases have often failed to satisfy the complainants.
(B) Comparable worth policies have been applied to both public-sector and private-sector employee pay schedules.
(C) Comparable worth as a policy has come to be widely criticized in the past decade.
(D) Many employers have considered comparable worth as a policy but very few have actually adopted it.
(E) Early implementations of comparable worth policies resulted in only transitory gains in pay equity.
In the next installment of this series, well talk about how to work your way through the above problem. I'll also give you the third problem in the set.
Key Takeaways for Roman Numeral questions
(1) Dont dive straight to the statements. First, make sure you understand the question, especially if its as involved as this one. Your understanding of the question should tell you what you need to figure out from the passage text. If you dont get that, guess and move on.
(2) Next, still dont dive into the statements! Go back to the passage, read the relevant text, and try to formulate your own overall answer to the question. This wont be the actual answer of course, but it will be the key to evaluating the statements. Again, if you dont get this step, guess and move on.
(3) Finally, you can go to the statements! But youre only going to get this far if you successfully pass the earlier steps. Dont be stubborn and keep going just because you think you have to get it right or you should be able to figure it out.
* GMATPrep questions courtesy of the Graduate Management Admissions Council. Usage of this question does not imply endorsement by GMAC.
Recent Articles
Archive
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009