Social Inequality and Discrimination

Which of the following best describes the logical relationship between the two hypotheses presented in lines 47 - 65?

Directions: The question
is based on the following reading passage. Choose
the best answer to the question on the basis of what
is stated or implied in the passage.

           The existence of both racial and sexual
           discrimination in employment is well
            documented, are policy makers and
            responsible employers are particularly
(5)        sensitive to the plight of the black female
            employee on the theory that she is doubly
            the victim of discrimination. That there exist
            difference in income between whites and
            blacks is clear, but it is not so clear that
(10)      these difference are solely the result of
            racial discrimination in employment. The
            two groups differ in productivity, so basis
            economics dictates that their incomes will
            differ.
(15)      To obtain a true measure of the effect of
            racial discrimination in employment it is
            necessary to adjust the gross black/white
            income ratio for these productivity factors.
            White women in urban areas have a higher
(20)      educational level than black women and can
            be expected to receive larger incomes.
            More-over, state distribution of residence
            is important because blacks are over-
            represented in the South where wage rates
(25)      are typically lower than elsewhere and where
            racial differentials in income are greater. Also,
            blacks are over-represented in large cities;
            incomes of blacks would be greater if blacks
            were distributed among cities of different sizes
(30)      in the same manner as whites.
            After standardization for these productivity
            factors, the income of black urban women is
            estimated to be between 108 and 125 percent
            of the income of white women. This indicates
(35)      that productivity factors more than account for
            the actual white/black income differential for
            women. Despite their greater education, white
            women's actual median income is only 2 to 5
            percent higher than that of black women in the
(40)      North. Unlike the situation of men, the evidence
            indicates that the money income of black urban
            women was as great as, or greater than, that of
            whites of similar productivity in the North, and
            probably in the United States as a whole. For
(45)       men, however, the adjusted black/white
            income ratio is approximately 80 percent.
            At least two possible hypotheses may
            explain why the adjustment for productivity
            more than accounts for the observed
(50)       income differential for women, whereas the
            income differential persists for men. First,
            there may be more discrimination against
            black men than against black women. The
            different occupational structures for men
(55)      and women give some indication why this
            could be the case, and institutionalized
            considerations – for example, the effect
            of unionization in cutting competition – may
            also contribute. Second, the data are
(60)      consistent with the hypothesis that the
            intensity of discrimination against women
            differs little between whites and black.
            Therefore, racial discrimination adds little
            to the effects of existing sex
(65)      discrimination. These findings suggest
            that a black woman does not necessarily
            suffer relatively more discrimination in the
            labor market than does a white woman.
            Rather, for women, the effects of sexual
(70)      discrimination are so pervasive that the
            effects of racial discrimination are negligible.
            Of course, this is not to say that the more
            generalized racial discrimination of which
            black women, like black men, are victims
(75)      does not disadvantage black women in their
            search for work. After all, one important
            productivity factor is level of education, and
            the difference between white and black
            women on this scale is largely the result of
(80)      racial discrimination.

Directions: For this question, select the best of the answer choices given.

The proportion of Afro-American students enrolled in Gilmore Community College has increased over the past decades. This is partly shown by the fact that in 1965, only 6 percent of Afro-American between twenty and twenty-three in the town of Gilmore were enrolled in college, while in 1997, 13 percent of the Afro-Americans between twenty and twenty-three were enrolled in Gilmore Community College. To evaluate the argument above, it would be most useful to compare 1965 and 1997 with regard to which of the following characteristics?

Racism has killed the essence of brotherhood and humanity among people. People tend to hate the visitors from overseas just because they are of a different color, caste or religion. This is not healthy for global development and should be stopped before it gets out of control and becomes a mass phenomenon. The masses should be educated about the ills of racism and the repercussions it results in.

Which of the following if added to the argument would not alter the conclusion and theme of the argument?

The tone of the passage is

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Americans originally used the term “hate crime” to describe a violent act committed against a person, property, or organization because of actual or perceived differences in race, colour, national origin, or religion. The phrase gained popularity as crimes motivated by prejudice and racism received national attention in the 1980s. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, violence against minorities is called “xenophobic” or “right-wing” violence in Germany, where neo-Nazi activity is scrutinized. It is called “racial violence” in nearby Great Britain and France. Hate crimes have also occurred throughout history, from the Romans’ religious persecution of Christians to the Hutus’ genocidal war against the Tutsis in Rwanda in the 1990s.

Today, the term “hate crime” is used to describe violent incidents in which the perpetrators are not only motivated by differences in race, colour, or religion, but by characteristics such as sexual orientation, gender, or disability. For example, when nearly 60 women were sexually and physically assaulted in Central Park in the summer of 1999, many Americans considered the attacks gender-based crimes. Also, the state of Oregon has laws that prohibit discrimination stemming from a myriad of characteristics, from political affiliation to marital status.

The current federal hate crime  s statute permits federal prosecution of a hate crime only if the crime was motivated by race, color, national origin, or religion. In addition, the 20offender must have attempted to hinder the victim’s participation in one of six federally protected rights, such as voting or attending a public school. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) was introduced in 1998, 1999, and again in 2000 in an attempt to enhance the present statute. Under the HCPA, hate crimes in which death or bodily injury occurred or a firearm or explosive device was used would be subject to federal investigation, whether or not the victim was participating in a federally protected activity. More importantly, the HCPA would allow crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability to be investigated by federal authorities. Former President Bill Clinton strongly supported the bill, claiming that it would “strengthen and expand the ability of the Justice System by removing needless jurisdiction requirements.” Despite winning the favor of 30the Senate, the 106th Congress disbanded in 2000 without passing the HCPA.

Though the HCPA has failed to pass a number of times, its supporters have not been discouraged. In 2000, over 100 civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, religious, and law enforcement groups launched a web-based campaign promoting the passage of the HCPA called “United against Hate.” Oregon Senator Gordon Smith states, “It has been more than 26 years since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet countless Americans still encounter discrimination.” He planned to introduce the bill to the 107th Congress in 2001.

The most controversial feature of the HCPA (The Hate Crimes Prevention Act) is that it attempts to “bring uniformity to the categories covered under current federal hate crimes 40law” by adding offenses motivated by sexual orientation, gender, and disability to the existing statute, which already prohibits crime based on race, color, national origin, and religion. Its supporters contend that crimes motivated by sexual orientation, gender, or disability deserve federal jurisdiction because they are fundamentally similar to other hate crimes. In the words of Mark Bargerter, “It makes no sense that the FBI can investigate, for example, a religious-based crime, but not a hate crime committed because someone is, or seems to be, gay.” Bargerter, a heterosexual man, was brutally beaten and partially blinded by an assailant who presumed he was a homosexual. Advocates of the HCPA also assert that gender should be added to hate crime legislation because victims have been targeted simply because they were women. For example, in 1989, at the 50University of Montreal, a man wielding a firearm verbally debased feminists and opened fire on female students, killing fourteen of them. Because they are intended to send threatening messages to certain groups, proponents maintain that hate crimes must be swiftly and harshly punished. According to Brian Levin, director of the Center on Hate and Extremism, such crimes “often inspire copycat crimes and a cycle of retaliatory violence by would-be vigilantes.”

Critics of hate crimes laws maintain that the criminal justice system deals with hate crimes fairly enough and that the HCPA is not needed. Criminal law professor William J. Stuntz says he does “not see significant social benefits of it. It fills no gap in the criminal law.” Other opponents claim that including sexual orientation, women, and disability in 60hate crimes law would create a special class of victims. Some argue that homosexuals, who strongly support the HCPA, seek minority status although they are not, like African Americans, historical victims of oppression. Law professor Lawrence Alexander agrees: “Violence against gays and the disabled, for example, is not a badge or incident of slavery.” Detractors also believe that the passing of the HCPA will balkanize the nation by giving select groups special treatment with protective federal laws. “Americans are not equal under the law,” argues columnist Heather Brick, “if crimes against a particular ‘victim’ group are punished more harshly than identical crimes against someone who is not a member of a government-protected group.”

The following can be the features of hate crime

I. The people indulging in hate crime don't follow any predesignated pattern. II. Jingoism might be one of the reasons for the hate crimes. III. One of the distinguishing features of a hate crime can be that it is based on coherent thought and reasoning.

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Americans originally used the term “hate crime” to describe a violent act committed against a person, property, or organization because of actual or perceived differences in race, colour, national origin, or religion. The phrase gained popularity as crimes motivated by prejudice and racism received national attention in the 1980s. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, violence against minorities is called “xenophobic” or “right-wing” violence in Germany, where neo-Nazi activity is scrutinized. It is called “racial violence” in nearby Great Britain and France. Hate crimes have also occurred throughout history, from the Romans’ religious persecution of Christians to the Hutus’ genocidal war against the Tutsis in Rwanda in the 1990s.

Today, the term “hate crime” is used to describe violent incidents in which the perpetrators are not only motivated by differences in race, colour, or religion, but by characteristics such as sexual orientation, gender, or disability. For example, when nearly 60 women were sexually and physically assaulted in Central Park in the summer of 1999, many Americans considered the attacks gender-based crimes. Also, the state of Oregon has laws that prohibit discrimination stemming from a myriad of characteristics, from political affiliation to marital status.

The current federal hate crime  s statute permits federal prosecution of a hate crime only if the crime was motivated by race, color, national origin, or religion. In addition, the 20offender must have attempted to hinder the victim’s participation in one of six federally protected rights, such as voting or attending a public school. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) was introduced in 1998, 1999, and again in 2000 in an attempt to enhance the present statute. Under the HCPA, hate crimes in which death or bodily injury occurred or a firearm or explosive device was used would be subject to federal investigation, whether or not the victim was participating in a federally protected activity. More importantly, the HCPA would allow crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability to be investigated by federal authorities. Former President Bill Clinton strongly supported the bill, claiming that it would “strengthen and expand the ability of the Justice System by removing needless jurisdiction requirements.” Despite winning the favor of 30the Senate, the 106th Congress disbanded in 2000 without passing the HCPA.

Though the HCPA has failed to pass a number of times, its supporters have not been discouraged. In 2000, over 100 civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, religious, and law enforcement groups launched a web-based campaign promoting the passage of the HCPA called “United against Hate.” Oregon Senator Gordon Smith states, “It has been more than 26 years since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet countless Americans still encounter discrimination.” He planned to introduce the bill to the 107th Congress in 2001.

The most controversial feature of the HCPA (The Hate Crimes Prevention Act) is that it attempts to “bring uniformity to the categories covered under current federal hate crimes 40law” by adding offenses motivated by sexual orientation, gender, and disability to the existing statute, which already prohibits crime based on race, color, national origin, and religion. Its supporters contend that crimes motivated by sexual orientation, gender, or disability deserve federal jurisdiction because they are fundamentally similar to other hate crimes. In the words of Mark Bargerter, “It makes no sense that the FBI can investigate, for example, a religious-based crime, but not a hate crime committed because someone is, or seems to be, gay.” Bargerter, a heterosexual man, was brutally beaten and partially blinded by an assailant who presumed he was a homosexual. Advocates of the HCPA also assert that gender should be added to hate crime legislation because victims have been targeted simply because they were women. For example, in 1989, at the 50University of Montreal, a man wielding a firearm verbally debased feminists and opened fire on female students, killing fourteen of them. Because they are intended to send threatening messages to certain groups, proponents maintain that hate crimes must be swiftly and harshly punished. According to Brian Levin, director of the Center on Hate and Extremism, such crimes “often inspire copycat crimes and a cycle of retaliatory violence by would-be vigilantes.”

Critics of hate crimes laws maintain that the criminal justice system deals with hate crimes fairly enough and that the HCPA is not needed. Criminal law professor William J. Stuntz says he does “not see significant social benefits of it. It fills no gap in the criminal law.” Other opponents claim that including sexual orientation, women, and disability in 60hate crimes law would create a special class of victims. Some argue that homosexuals, who strongly support the HCPA, seek minority status although they are not, like African Americans, historical victims of oppression. Law professor Lawrence Alexander agrees: “Violence against gays and the disabled, for example, is not a badge or incident of slavery.” Detractors also believe that the passing of the HCPA will balkanize the nation by giving select groups special treatment with protective federal laws. “Americans are not equal under the law,” argues columnist Heather Brick, “if crimes against a particular ‘victim’ group are punished more harshly than identical crimes against someone who is not a member of a government-protected group.”

Criminal acts against the following people can be called hate crime except

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Americans originally used the term “hate crime” to describe a violent act committed against a person, property, or organization because of actual or perceived differences in race, colour, national origin, or religion. The phrase gained popularity as crimes motivated by prejudice and racism received national attention in the 1980s. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, violence against minorities is called “xenophobic” or “right-wing” violence in Germany, where neo-Nazi activity is scrutinized. It is called “racial violence” in nearby Great Britain and France. Hate crimes have also occurred throughout history, from the Romans’ religious persecution of Christians to the Hutus’ genocidal war against the Tutsis in Rwanda in the 1990s.

Today, the term “hate crime” is used to describe violent incidents in which the perpetrators are not only motivated by differences in race, colour, or religion, but by characteristics such as sexual orientation, gender, or disability. For example, when nearly 60 women were sexually and physically assaulted in Central Park in the summer of 1999, many Americans considered the attacks gender-based crimes. Also, the state of Oregon has laws that prohibit discrimination stemming from a myriad of characteristics, from political affiliation to marital status.

The current federal hate crime  s statute permits federal prosecution of a hate crime only if the crime was motivated by race, color, national origin, or religion. In addition, the 20offender must have attempted to hinder the victim’s participation in one of six federally protected rights, such as voting or attending a public school. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) was introduced in 1998, 1999, and again in 2000 in an attempt to enhance the present statute. Under the HCPA, hate crimes in which death or bodily injury occurred or a firearm or explosive device was used would be subject to federal investigation, whether or not the victim was participating in a federally protected activity. More importantly, the HCPA would allow crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability to be investigated by federal authorities. Former President Bill Clinton strongly supported the bill, claiming that it would “strengthen and expand the ability of the Justice System by removing needless jurisdiction requirements.” Despite winning the favor of 30the Senate, the 106th Congress disbanded in 2000 without passing the HCPA.

Though the HCPA has failed to pass a number of times, its supporters have not been discouraged. In 2000, over 100 civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, religious, and law enforcement groups launched a web-based campaign promoting the passage of the HCPA called “United against Hate.” Oregon Senator Gordon Smith states, “It has been more than 26 years since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet countless Americans still encounter discrimination.” He planned to introduce the bill to the 107th Congress in 2001.

The most controversial feature of the HCPA (The Hate Crimes Prevention Act) is that it attempts to “bring uniformity to the categories covered under current federal hate crimes 40law” by adding offenses motivated by sexual orientation, gender, and disability to the existing statute, which already prohibits crime based on race, color, national origin, and religion. Its supporters contend that crimes motivated by sexual orientation, gender, or disability deserve federal jurisdiction because they are fundamentally similar to other hate crimes. In the words of Mark Bargerter, “It makes no sense that the FBI can investigate, for example, a religious-based crime, but not a hate crime committed because someone is, or seems to be, gay.” Bargerter, a heterosexual man, was brutally beaten and partially blinded by an assailant who presumed he was a homosexual. Advocates of the HCPA also assert that gender should be added to hate crime legislation because victims have been targeted simply because they were women. For example, in 1989, at the 50University of Montreal, a man wielding a firearm verbally debased feminists and opened fire on female students, killing fourteen of them. Because they are intended to send threatening messages to certain groups, proponents maintain that hate crimes must be swiftly and harshly punished. According to Brian Levin, director of the Center on Hate and Extremism, such crimes “often inspire copycat crimes and a cycle of retaliatory violence by would-be vigilantes.”

Critics of hate crimes laws maintain that the criminal justice system deals with hate crimes fairly enough and that the HCPA is not needed. Criminal law professor William J. Stuntz says he does “not see significant social benefits of it. It fills no gap in the criminal law.” Other opponents claim that including sexual orientation, women, and disability in 60hate crimes law would create a special class of victims. Some argue that homosexuals, who strongly support the HCPA, seek minority status although they are not, like African Americans, historical victims of oppression. Law professor Lawrence Alexander agrees: “Violence against gays and the disabled, for example, is not a badge or incident of slavery.” Detractors also believe that the passing of the HCPA will balkanize the nation by giving select groups special treatment with protective federal laws. “Americans are not equal under the law,” argues columnist Heather Brick, “if crimes against a particular ‘victim’ group are punished more harshly than identical crimes against someone who is not a member of a government-protected group.”

The following can be the reason for the constant rejection of the HCPA

Directions: Answer the question based on the following passage.

Americans originally used the term “hate crime” to describe a violent act committed against a person, property, or organization because of actual or perceived differences in race, colour, national origin, or religion. The phrase gained popularity as crimes motivated by prejudice and racism received national attention in the 1980s. According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, violence against minorities is called “xenophobic” or “right-wing” violence in Germany, where neo-Nazi activity is scrutinized. It is called “racial violence” in nearby Great Britain and France. Hate crimes have also occurred throughout history, from the Romans’ religious persecution of Christians to the Hutus’ genocidal war against the Tutsis in Rwanda in the 1990s.

Today, the term “hate crime” is used to describe violent incidents in which the perpetrators are not only motivated by differences in race, colour, or religion, but by characteristics such as sexual orientation, gender, or disability. For example, when nearly 60 women were sexually and physically assaulted in Central Park in the summer of 1999, many Americans considered the attacks gender-based crimes. Also, the state of Oregon has laws that prohibit discrimination stemming from a myriad of characteristics, from political affiliation to marital status.

The current federal hate crime  s statute permits federal prosecution of a hate crime only if the crime was motivated by race, color, national origin, or religion. In addition, the 20offender must have attempted to hinder the victim’s participation in one of six federally protected rights, such as voting or attending a public school. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act (HCPA) was introduced in 1998, 1999, and again in 2000 in an attempt to enhance the present statute. Under the HCPA, hate crimes in which death or bodily injury occurred or a firearm or explosive device was used would be subject to federal investigation, whether or not the victim was participating in a federally protected activity. More importantly, the HCPA would allow crimes based on sexual orientation, gender, or disability to be investigated by federal authorities. Former President Bill Clinton strongly supported the bill, claiming that it would “strengthen and expand the ability of the Justice System by removing needless jurisdiction requirements.” Despite winning the favor of 30the Senate, the 106th Congress disbanded in 2000 without passing the HCPA.

Though the HCPA has failed to pass a number of times, its supporters have not been discouraged. In 2000, over 100 civil rights, human rights, women’s rights, religious, and law enforcement groups launched a web-based campaign promoting the passage of the HCPA called “United against Hate.” Oregon Senator Gordon Smith states, “It has been more than 26 years since the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, yet countless Americans still encounter discrimination.” He planned to introduce the bill to the 107th Congress in 2001.

The most controversial feature of the HCPA (The Hate Crimes Prevention Act) is that it attempts to “bring uniformity to the categories covered under current federal hate crimes 40law” by adding offenses motivated by sexual orientation, gender, and disability to the existing statute, which already prohibits crime based on race, color, national origin, and religion. Its supporters contend that crimes motivated by sexual orientation, gender, or disability deserve federal jurisdiction because they are fundamentally similar to other hate crimes. In the words of Mark Bargerter, “It makes no sense that the FBI can investigate, for example, a religious-based crime, but not a hate crime committed because someone is, or seems to be, gay.” Bargerter, a heterosexual man, was brutally beaten and partially blinded by an assailant who presumed he was a homosexual. Advocates of the HCPA also assert that gender should be added to hate crime legislation because victims have been targeted simply because they were women. For example, in 1989, at the 50University of Montreal, a man wielding a firearm verbally debased feminists and opened fire on female students, killing fourteen of them. Because they are intended to send threatening messages to certain groups, proponents maintain that hate crimes must be swiftly and harshly punished. According to Brian Levin, director of the Center on Hate and Extremism, such crimes “often inspire copycat crimes and a cycle of retaliatory violence by would-be vigilantes.”

Critics of hate crimes laws maintain that the criminal justice system deals with hate crimes fairly enough and that the HCPA is not needed. Criminal law professor William J. Stuntz says he does “not see significant social benefits of it. It fills no gap in the criminal law.” Other opponents claim that including sexual orientation, women, and disability in 60hate crimes law would create a special class of victims. Some argue that homosexuals, who strongly support the HCPA, seek minority status although they are not, like African Americans, historical victims of oppression. Law professor Lawrence Alexander agrees: “Violence against gays and the disabled, for example, is not a badge or incident of slavery.” Detractors also believe that the passing of the HCPA will balkanize the nation by giving select groups special treatment with protective federal laws. “Americans are not equal under the law,” argues columnist Heather Brick, “if crimes against a particular ‘victim’ group are punished more harshly than identical crimes against someone who is not a member of a government-protected group.”