Acting on the recommendation of a British government committee investigating the high incidence in white lead factories of illness among employees, most of whom were women, the Home Secretary proposed in 1895 that Parliament enact legislation that would prohibit women from holding most jobs in white lead factories. Although the Women's Industrial Defence Committee (WIDC), formed in 1892 in response to earlier legislative attempts to restrict women's labor, did not discount the white lead trade's potential health dangers, it opposed the proposal, viewing it as yet another instance of limiting women's work opportunities.

Also opposing the proposal was the Society for Promoting the Employment of Women (SPEW), which attempted to challenge it by investigating the causes of illness in white lead factories. SPEW contended, and WIDC concurred, that controllable conditions in such factories were responsible for the development of lead poisoning. SPEW provided convincing evidence that lead poisoning could be avoided if workers were careful and clean and if already extant workplace safety regulations were stringently enforced. However, the Women's Trade Union League (WTUL), which had ceased in the late 1880s to oppose restrictions on women's labor, supported the eventually enacted proposal, in part because safety regulations were generally not being enforced in white lead factories, where there were no unions (and little prospect of any) to pressure employers to comply with safety regulations.



The passage suggests that WIDC differed from WTUL in which of the following ways?


WIDC believed that the existing safety regulations were adequate to protect women's health, whereas WTUL believed that such regulations needed to be strengthened.

WIDC believed that unions could not succeed in pressuring employers to comply with such regulations, whereas WTUL believed that unions could succeed in doing so.

WIDC believed that lead poisoning in white lead factories could be avoided by controlling conditions there, whereas WTUL believed that lead poisoning in such factories could not be avoided no matter how stringently safety regulations were enforced.

At the time that the legislation concerning white lead factories was proposed, WIDC was primarily concerned with addressing health conditions in white lead factories, whereas WTUL was concerned with improving working conditions in all types of factories.

At the time that WIDC was opposing legislative attempts to restrict women's labor, WTUL had already ceased to do so.

考题讲解

文章大意:


现象:铅粉厂的工人生病;大部分工人是女性

提议:不准女性在铅粉厂工作

WIDC:反对——认为这是在限制女性的工作机会

SPEW:反对,并调查生病的真正原因

→ safety regulation

WTUL:原本反对对女性的限制,后来支持。


题目分析:


文章细节题:WIDC和WTUL的区别是?


选项分析:

A选项:WIDC相信现有的安全法规足以保护女性的健康,而WTUL认为不行:WTUL认为法规无法发挥作用的原因是因为没人实行,而不是法规本身的问题。

B选项:WIDC认为工会无法成功施压于工人,而WTUL认为工会可以:文章最后说WTUL认为工会并没有能力让工人遵守法规。

C选项:WIDC认为铅中毒可以通过控制环境控制,而WTUL认为铅中毒是无法避免的,无论如何加强法规:WTUL认为的是要通过限制女工来避免铅中毒,而法规无法发挥作用的原因是没人实行,而不是法规本身有问题。

D选项:
关于铅粉厂的提议出来的时候,WIDC主要考虑铅粉厂健康条件,而WTUL考虑提高所有类型的工厂的工作环境:文章没有提到其他类型的工厂。

E选项:正确。
WIDC反对限制女性工人的时候,WTUL已经停止做这个活动了:WIDC在1892年成立,为了反对对女性工人的限制;而WTUL在1880s的时候就停止了反对。

展开显示

登录注册 后可以参加讨论

OG2017-RC