Problem
Jane has five coins totaling 35 cents. Each coin is either a penny, a nickel, a dime, or a quarter. After using two of the coins ...
|
|
|
GMAT: Reading Comprehension Question #3 |
|
Feminist sociolinguists, over the course of the last few decades, have conducted studies that they believe support the conclusion that women are routinely discriminated against in English-speaking society. They point to the words used to describe women, as well as the words used to describe society as a whole, as indications that the English language, and therefore the English-speaking culture, is slanted towards the advantage of males.
The words used to describe women are used an instrument by feminist sociolinguists to denote an inherent sexism in the English language. Word pairs such as master and mistress and sir and madam, they claim, epitomize such sexism. All of the words in question once held positive connotations but, while the masculine forms have retained their respectable associations, the feminine forms have undergone pejoration and now imply sexual promiscuity and other negative characteristics. Feminist researchers posit that such pejorations indicate that the status of women in English-speaking society is relatively low.
These researchers also find fault with the use of masculine words to describe unisex entities. For example, they feel that there is nothing inherently manly about mankind, the best man for the job, or the common man. Similarly, the use of such constructions such as the average student is worried about his grades indicate to these researchers an inherent sexism in English that is reflective of the cultures in which they are produced.
Carolyn Jacobson, author of Non-Sexist Language, has proposed a solution to this conundrum. She advocates the elimination of all sexed words in favor of gender-neutral terms. No longer should we refer to actors and actresses, or waiters and waitresses, as such dichotomies allow for the possibility of negative connotations being associated with the feminine designation. Likewise, she believes that phrases such as mankind should give way to human kind, and that the use of the masculine pronoun as the default should be relinquished in favor of neutral constructions. Thus, when sexism is eliminated from the English language, the culture will be more amenable to the deliverance of women as well.
Question:
The author refers to mankind, the best man for the job, and the common man in order to:
Choices:
This is a logic purpose question. It asks what the function of a reference is. So, research. Where did the author mention mankind, etc.? In the third paragraph. And what was the purpose of the third paragraph? To give an example of sexism in the English language. (B) sums it up best.
(A) is a distorted answer. The author does not seek to demonstrate the superiority of males; only that the English language is tipped in their favor.
(C) is out of place. The second paragraph, not the third, which is what we are dealing with, mentions pejoration and speech describing women. The third paragraph is about speech describing society in general.
(D) is completely out of scope. The author never talks about any feminist sociolinguist movement. He mentions the studies of the feminist sociolinguists, but never claims that they are a movement, and certainly never enumerates their characteristics.
Finally, (E) is the exact opposite of the correct answer. The author does not mention mankind, etc. to discount the notion that the English language discriminates against women, but rather to attempt to prove that it does.
|
|
|
