Q11

[uhdang]

It's good to make a note of an example when you read the passage over the first time. In the second paragraph, there was a Chinese worker -- Pico worker example to discuss establishing globalized perspective on working condition and international ties through "recent immigrants." (25-34)

Let's get into the answer choices.

A) Out of scope. Globalizing perspective on working condition is discussed but not the contrasting with U.S.

B) Considering something similar has been presented as an example, it's far-fetched to say that it's "unique."

C) Regarding “recent working-class immigrants.” This is it, as discussed above. Correct.

D) Too general. And it would be a wrong subject. This was about Pico workers and recent-immigrants providing the international ties to the Korean American community. Korean American community is not the subject to be analogized.

E) This example was not to present "problem" but a discovery of a new role. Also, there might be similarities but no contrasting.

[Yu440]

Hello,

I'm confused by this question.

Line 26: "These immigrants' knowledge of working conditions overseas can help to globalize the perspective of their communities and can help to establish international ties on a more personal level..." Here is "communities" referring to communities back in South Korea?

My pre-phrase for this question was something like "provides an example of the ways where the immigrants can establish international ties on a more personal level". Is this what (c) is saying? Sorry I'm confused by the language of the answer choice: are the "recent working-class immigrants" in answer c referring to Chinese or Koreans?

Thanks!

[Yu440]

Wait, okay I found proof in the passage, from line 23 "The Pico workers also suggested new roles that can be played by recent immigrants, particularly working-class immigrants".

I understand now! But this is quite a few lines ahead of the sentence talking about Chinese immigrants. Does that mean when we search for evidence in the passage, we should look quite a few lines ahead?

[ohthatpatrick]

Yeah, that is essentially "the formula" for RC question stems that say
in order to
serves to
primarily to


They're asking about the Purpose of a detail, and the Purpose of a detail is to support some "framing idea" that usually occurs right before it (in some cases, right after it).

Whenever I see "in order to / serves to / primarily to", I think of it as a "Bookend question" .... meaning, I care less about the detail itself and more about what the broader idea was that set it up (or the broader takeaway that followed, if the broad idea doesn't come before).