Q5

[dababbott]

This was a very tough question for me. I eliminated C and D quickly, and then evaluated A, B, & E without immediate clarity.

5. "...most clearly suggests that which one of the following is true of the group of ministers who led the Downstate campaign?"

After deciding that B was unsupportable, I wrestled with A and E.

I thought that A was actually somewhat contradictory since the passage continuously dwelled on the departure the ministers were making from their previous approach [7-8, 40] AND never discussed what their goals were before (certainly their previous goals before the campaign were not to "build a mass movement that would force changes in government policies as well as in trade union hiring practices..." (lines 12-15].

The closest I got to defining these goals was that they focused on mediating "between their communities and the government" [37-38] and "effecting change through established political channels."

E seemed better, because:

* they were inspired by "the emergence of African American religious leaders as key figures elsewhere in the civil rights movement" ([18-20] implying to me that the ministers were NOT figures in the civil rights movement)

* the passage sets up "civil rights activists" as being separate from the ministers [50] and the "national civil rights organization" as jeopardizing the ministers' "politically moderate" status [8, 24-25, 30]

* they risked their reputations within their communities for effecting change through established political channels" [42].

This did not seem like a group of ministers that had all been directly involved in civil rights prior to the Downstate campaign.

How is (A) a better answer than (E)? Where exactly does this passage "clearly suggest" this?

Thanks, this question (actually, the answer) aggravated me.

[ccalice21]

I like E better than A as well, because of line 18-20.

However, it only implies they are not "key figures" in civil rights movement. In other words, they could have been just "involved", as phrased in choice E.

[noah]

Good question (and response).

This is a subtle one, and it comes down to that while (A) is not a slam dunk, (E) has not support.

The question asks for what is most likely true of the ministers. (A) has support in that the ministers had previously served as mediators (37), which isn't necessarily a political position, but later (61-62) we learn that the ministers maintained their moderate political ties. Also, we never hear that the minister's participation signaled a change in their goals, but only in the mode of participation.

(B) is unsupported - we don't hear what these ministers did later. Don't be fooled by the "model" reference at the end of the passage!

(C) is unsupported.

(D) is unsupported.

(E) is tempting, but we only learn that they were moderate political figures, as well as moderators, and politicians. They still could have been involved in civil rights activities.

I hope that helps.

[Dtodaizzle]

I picked C. In lines 31 to 34, we learn that the ministers have spent decades working with community and government organizations to address economic concerns of their communities. Given that one of the chief concerns of the demonstration is regarding the exclusion of African-Americans from construction jobs, why can't we infer that these ministers have met in the past to discuss this issue before CORE's involvement in the Downstate campaign?

[maryadkins]

Another way to think about your question is, why CAN we infer that when these ministers worked in the past, it was "for the purpose of addressing problems in the construction industry?" It's certainly plausible to have worked for decades on social issues without even touching the construction industry at all.

Be very careful about inferences. It sounds like you know this, but this is not a valid one here.

[erikwoodward10]

I think that A is directly supported by lines 29-35--here the passage says that the ministers had worked for decades with community and government organizations to address the "social, political and economic concerns" of their communities. The downstate campaign was addressing economic concerns of the communities, obviously.

Furthermore, E is directly contradicted by these same lines. I think we can interpret this type of community work, in the context of the civil rights era, as "civil rights activities".

[IrisH894]

Direct support for A can be found in the last paragraph, where the author says that "the ministers managed to maintain their moderate political ties" and "continued to work through established political channels".
I think a major point of this article is that by leading the Downstate protest, the ministers were actually taking a huge risk-- they could have lost their moderate positions within the community as well as the ability to affect future changes. But they managed to maintain a delicate balance, and the fact that they didn;t lose their moderation is something that can be learned from.
E is wrong because "civil rights activities" are quite different from civil disobedience campaigns like protests. We know from the article that the ministers probably never took part in protests before the Downstate demonstration--they mostly took on a mediating role within the community. This doesn't mean they weren't involved in civil rights activities, which didn't need to be so subversive. In fact, according to the passage these ministers often worked with community organizations to advance social goals, so it's pretty likely that they participated in some good-natured/peaceful civil activities.