Reading Comprehension

Source: KAPLAN

There is an intriguing note to the current call
upon civil rights law to help remedy the undervaluation
of women's work. Until fairly recently, government
was not expected to solve workers' economic
grievances, however valid they might be.
Many assumed that the responsibility lay with
workers themselves. Collective bargaining was
the preferred instrument for pursuing pay equity
for women. Rather than call upon the law to regulate
the market from the outside, one could try
to reshape or otherwise influence the market so
that women themselves would be better able to
address the problem. This could be done by raising
absolute wage levels in low-paying, predominantly
female industries (such as retail clothing)
or by changing the pay relationship between
largely female and largely male occupations within
a single industry, such as auto manufacturing.
Through union representation, employees in traditionally
female jobs in an industry could identify
the actual degree of underpayment of their
work and then, as a group, pressure their employer
to remedy it. In addition, this process would
encourage those affected-men and women
alike-to be sensitive to the limits of available
resources, to be pragmatic about the pace at
which the wage structure could be revised.

I do not mean to suggest that collective bargaining
is a foolproof means for closing the gender
gap in wages. To the extent that the problem
involves the undervaluation of nonunion female
occupations in an otherwise unionized industry,
political hurdles will discourage unionized
employees from supporting revisions in the wage
structure. And to the extent that the problem is
the concentration of women in low-paying industries-
textiles, for example-the product market
imposes serious economic constraints on a substantial
closing of the wage gap.

Despite the imperfections of tools like collective
bargaining for redressing wage disparities
between men and women, a reliance on law or
government is favorable for neither individual
firms nor our economy as a whole. Nonetheless,
although opponents of mandatory public remedies
may correctly fear those remedies as being
a cure worse than the disease, they are wrong
when they imply that the current system of wage
determination by business management is perfectly
healthy.

Q1
It can be inferred that the author's attitude toward opponents of government regulation of wage determination mentioned in the last paragraph is characterized by which of the following?

I. Distrust of their motives
II. Sympathy with some of their concerns
III. Disagreement with some of their assumptions
IV. Opposition to their political principles

(A) I only
(B) III only
(C) I and II only
(D) II and III only
(E) I, II, and IV

OA: D
Can someone explain in easy language?

Q2
The passage refers to which of the following as reasons for preferring collective bargaining to legislation as a method of ending the undervaluation of women's work?
I. The greater responsiveness of collective bargaining to existing conditions that affect wage levels
II. The general desirability of using private rather than public remedies
III. The potential of collective bargaining for achieving a uniform national solution to the problem of gender wage disparities

(A) I only
(B) III only
(C) I and II only
(D) II and III only
(E) I, II, and III

OA: C

akhp

Q2 something can be said about the question but i cant understand the question 1.

akhp

I actually got these two right so I am just gonna answer your questions first. But I got another question wrong and I couldn't figure it out myself. So I'll need someone's help on that.

Q1 is asking the author's attitude as implied from the last paragraph. The answer to this question can be found at the last sentence. "Nonetheless, although opponents of mandatory public remedies may correctly fear (sympathy and concern) those remedies as being a cure worse than the disease, they are wrong (disagreement) when they imply that the current system of wage determination by business management is perfectly healthy." I hope the boldfaced words give you some clue.

Q2 is asking why collective bargaining is preferred. In paragraph 1, toward the end, the author mentions "this process (collective bargaining) would encourage those affected to be sensitive to the limits of available resources, to be pragmatic about the pace at which the wage structure could be revised." Thus, responsiveness. In the second sentence of paragraph 2, the author mentions "political hurdles will discourage unionized employees from supporting revisions in the wage structure," therefore private remedies are preferred over public.

Now here is my question:
According to the author, the process of unionization and collective bargaining could do all of the following EXCEPT
A. overcome market pressures that keep wages in some industries lower than in others
B. encourage worker flexibility in adjusting a new pay scale to economic conditions
C. help workers to apply group pressure on employers
D. aid in determining the degree to which women are being underpaid
E. sensitize workers to the limits of their industry's ability to institute change

Answer: A

I picked B.