
GMAT Reading Comprehension
Reading Passage Question
In 1905, the Supreme Court of the United States decided on the case Lochner v. New York, and in doing so overturned the Bakeshop Act, which limited the number of hours that a baker could work per day to ten. The Court ruled that the Act removed a person's right to enter freely into contracts, which it construed as provided for by the 14th Amendment. The Court had previously determined through multiple rulings that the Due Process Clause, found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, was not merely a procedural guarantee, but also a substantive limitation on the type of control the government may exercise over individuals. Lochner set a precedent against the establishment of federal and state laws regulating working hours and wages. For example, in Adkins v. Children's Hospital, in 1923, the Court ruled that federal minimum wage legislation for women was an unconstitutional infringement of liberty of contract, as protected by due process.
Some subsequent development of human rights evolved on the basis of Lochner; for example, Adkins was a significant point in the women's rights movement in the U.S., as the legislature and justice department for decades debated whether to establish absolute equality of women or provide only special protections and regulations for them. Nevertheless, the Court overturned Adkins and undermined Lochner in deciding West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, in 1937. That ruling repudiated the idea that freedom of contract should be unrestricted and echoed after the fact the dissenting opinion of Justice Holmes in Adkins that there were plenty of constraints on contract, such as against usury. At the time of West Coast Hotel, whose outcome hinged on an unexpected shift in the habits of Associate Justice Roberts, the dissenting Justice Sutherland was critical of the prospect that interpretation of the Constitution had been influenced by strictly contemporary events--ostensibly, the pressures placed upon workers by the circumstances of the ongoing Great Depression. Time has evidently judged this criticism to have been incorrect, since, while Lochner influenced a ruling whose imprint still remains, individuals' freedom of contract is not deemed limited by reasonable laws to protect workers' health and safety.
“In 1905, the Supreme Court of the United States decided on the case”- is a GMAT reading comprehension passage with answers. Nominees must have a firm understanding of English GMAT reading comprehension. There are 7 comprehension questions in this GMAT Reading Comprehension section. GMAT Reading Comprehension questions are conducted to examine candidates' skills to decipher, interpret, and utilize knowledge or ideas. Candidates can actively prepare by answering GMAT Reading Comprehension Practice Questions.
Solutions and Explanation
Answer: (D)
Explanation: The first option is invalid because the statement is not supported by the passage. The second option is also wrong because it is the polar opposite. The third option is also not the right answer because it contains distorted information. The final option is also incorrect for the same reason as the previous one. Finally, the fourth option is the correct answer.
Answer: (C)
Explanation: The first and fourth answers are wrong choices because they both fall outside the parameters of the question. The second option is somewhat contrary and irrelevant, so invalid choice. The last option should also be rejected because it contains an objective mistake. In summary, the third option is the right choice.
Answer: (B)
Explanation: Adkins was overturned, and Lochner was "undermined" by West Coast. It did not overturn the ruling because it undermined Lochner. But it may have reduced the significance of the ruling or established a basis on which Lochner was later overturned. The second option is the correct answer, according to this. This is due to the fact that it appears to be accurate.
Answer: (A)
Explanation: The second option is ruled out because the passage determines that the ruling was not based solely on current events. The third option, which aligns Roberts with Sutherland, is inaccurate. The fourth option is unsupported and almost certainly implausible, so it is eliminated. The final option makes a strong claim that is not stated or implied by the passage, making it invalid. Finally, the first option is the correct answer.
Answer: (A)
Explanation: Except for the first option, all of the remaining options are incorrect choices. The second option improperly describes the West Coast context. The third option is invalid; this is not a gender issue. The fourth option is a wrong answer because the Court never dropped due process and thus did not need to be reinstated. The final option's statement goes too far in discussing the "scope of human rights." As a result, the first option is the correct response.
Answer: (B)
Explanation: The purpose of this passage is to describe a series of court rulings concerning worker's rights and worker protection. Some aspects were overturned over time, and some influences outlasted the specific rulings. According to this interpretation, the second option is the best fit of the given options and thus the correct answer. The remaining options are all poor choices.
Answer: (E)
Explanation: The point of West Coast was that the Court decided that it had the authority to limit working hours. This is because it had been reasonably restricting worker contracts for their protection all along. The first three options must be eliminated because they contradict the basic description. The fourth option is plausible, but it fails to account. As a result, the last option is the best answer.
Suggested GMAT Reading Comprehension Samples
*The article might have information for the previous academic years, please refer the official website of the exam.