Q23

[cwolfington]

I get why B is correct, but can someone please explain why A is incorrect? I think it's summed up perfectly in lines 19-22.

[maryadkins]

So, lines 19-20 are saying that the training is problematic in that the JOBS it's training them for don't require English/are low-level jobs. The point here isn't that the centers should be teaching English. It's a subtle difference but an important one. Maybe the people are already learning English elsewhere. Maybe the point is that they should go ahead and be trained for jobs that require English but pay more.

(B) gets at this idea that it's the income level of the jobs that's the problem.

(C) and (D) aren't supported, and (E) is kind of the opposite of what you want.

Hope this helps!

[dhlim3]

B is actually one of the answers that I eliminated right away. The phrase that raised red flag was the the first part - "some of the programs' attempts to improve earning power of the immigrants".

Line 19-22 indicates that the processing centers are more concerned about getting the immigrants immediate jobs and are insufficient in providing them with job skills that could lead to higher paying jobs (i.e. English proficiency). The passage suggests nothing about the centers trying to improve earning power of the immigrants - it actually implies the opposite (immediate low paying jobs). I understand that this is actually what Tollefson thinks of the program, but the passage still doesn't suggest anything about the immigration centers' real intentions or goals, or anything about making attempts to improve the immigrants' earnings. I guess you can argue that by providing them with immediate low income jobs, that, in essence, is an attempt to improve earning powers (from $0 earning to whatever low wage they get from the new job). Is this how I am supposed to think?

I picked E instead because Tollefson's main issue with the centers is that they try to instill traditionally "Western" principles and values on the immigrants. What threw me off is the word "shared" because I interpreted it as" similar principles and cultural values shared between the immigrants' home country and those of the United States'". By emphasizing the similarities, it would somewhat resolve the issue with the program that "encourage the immigrants to shed their traditions" (line 34-35), therefore would help the immigrants in maintaining their ethnic identity and benefit their community in the long run. I thought this was something to which Tollefson would agree.

Am I missing something here?

[maryadkins]

I guess you can argue that by providing them with immediate low income jobs, that, in essence, is an attempt to improve earning powers (from $0 earning to whatever low wage they get from the new job). Is this how I am supposed to think?

Exactly. The only reason to train them for jobs at all is to improve their earning power.

Regarding (E), I see your thinking. But I see it as much more of a stretch than (B). Tollefson is concerned with assimilation as a guiding principle (line 41). We're given the issues he takes with this. But it is very possible, and maybe even likely, that he WOULDN'T want shared values to be the guide; maybe he would want US values to be left out of the program entirely? His whole thing is that US values have too great a role in the curriculum. A "greater emphasis" on values that still include the US's goals isn't something we can be pretty sure he'd agree with. (B) is safer.

[YT]

Hello, I wonder whether answer choice (A) would be correct, if it said "adequate training for low-paid jobs" instead of "adequate job training". Thanks in advance.

[JinZ551]

Hello, I wonder whether answer choice (A) would be correct, if it said "adequate training for low-paid jobs" instead of "adequate job training". Thanks in advance.

I think adequate is a pretty strong word and hard to infer from the passage