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.