(The following passage was written in 1977.) Changes in the volume of unemployment are governed by three fundamental forces: the...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Source: Official Guide
...
...
Post a Query
(The following passage was written in 1977.)
Changes in the volume of unemployment are governed by three fundamental forces: the growth of the labor force, the increase in output per man-hour, and the growth of total demand for goods and services. Changes in the average hours of work enter in exactly parallel fashion but have been quantitatively less significant. As productivity rises, less labor is required per dollar of national product, or more goods and services can be produced with the same number of man-hours. If output does not grow, employment will certainly fall; if production increases more rapidly than productivity (less any decline in average hours worked), employment must rise. But the labor force grows, too. Unless gross national product (total final expenditure for goods and services corrected for price changes) rises more rapidly than the sum of productivity increase and labor force growth (again modified for any change in hours of work), the increase in employment will be inadequate to absorb the growth in the labor force. Inevitably the unemployment rate will increase. Only when total production expands faster than the rate of labor force growth plus the rate of productivity increase and minus the rate at which average annual hours fall does the unemployment rate fall.
Increases in productivity were more important than growth of the labor force as sources of the wide gains in output experienced in the period from the end of World War II to the mid-sixties. These increases in potential production simply were not matched by increases in demand adequate to maintain steady full employment.
Except for the recession years of 1949, 1954, and 1958, the rate of economic growth exceeded the rate of productivity increase. However, in the late 1950s productivity and the labor force were increasing more rapidly than usual, while the growth of output was slower than usual. This accounted for the change in employment rates.
But if part of the national purpose is to reduce and contain unemployment, arithmetic is not enough. We must know which of the basic factors we can control and which we wish to control. Unemployment would have risen more slowly or fallen more rapidly if productivity had increased more slowly, or the labor force had increased more slowly, or the hours of work had fallen more steeply, or total output had grown more rapidly. These are not independent factors, however, and a change in any of them might have caused changes in the others.
A society can choose to reduce the growth of productivity, and it can probably find ways to frustrate its own creativity. However, while a reduction in the growth of productivity at the expense of potential output might result in higher employment in the short run, the long-run effect on the national interest would be disastrous.
We must also give consideration to the fact that hidden beneath national averages is continuous movement into, out of, between, and within labor markets. For example, 15 years ago, the average number of persons in the labor force was 73.4 million, with about 66.7 million employed and 3.9 million unemployed. Yet 14 million experienced some term of unemployment in that year. Some were new entrants to the labor force; others were laid off temporarily. The remainder were those who were permanently or indefinitely severed from their jobs. Thus, the average number unemployed during a year understates the actual volume of involuntary displacement that occurs.
High unemployment is not an inevitable result of the pace of technological change but the consequence of passive public policy. We can anticipate a moderate increase in the labor force accompanied by a slow and irregular decline in hours of work. It follows that the output of the economy—and the aggregate demand to buy it—must grow by more than 4 percent a year just to prevent the unemployment rate from rising, and by even more if the unemployment rate is to fall further. Yet our economy has seldom, if ever, grown at a rate greater than 3.5 percent for any extended length of time. We have no cause of complacency. Positive fiscal, monetary, and manpower policies will be needed in the future.
Ques. 1/10
The primary purpose of the passage is to
Solution
1. Passage Analysis:
Progressive Passage Analysis
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
|---|---|
| Changes in the volume of unemployment are governed by three fundamental forces: the growth of the labor force, the increase in output per man-hour, and the growth of total demand for goods and services. | What it says: Three main things control how unemployment changes: more workers entering the job market, workers becoming more productive, and people wanting to buy more stuff. What it does: Sets up the entire framework for the passage - introduces the three key variables Source/Type: Author's analytical framework Connection to Previous Sentences: This is our starting point - no previous information to connect to Visualization: Think of unemployment like water in a bathtub: - Labor force growth = more water flowing in - Productivity increase = the drain getting bigger - Demand growth = the tub itself getting bigger What We Know So Far: The three factors that matter What We Don't Know Yet: How these three factors interact with each other Key Insight: This is our roadmap - everything that follows will explain these three forces |
| Changes in the average hours of work enter in exactly parallel fashion but have been quantitatively less significant. | What it says: How many hours people work also matters, but it's not as important as the big three. What it does: Adds a fourth factor but downplays its importance Source/Type: Author's clarification Connection to Previous Sentences: This builds on sentence 1 by adding one more factor but tells us we don't need to worry about it much Visualization: If the first three factors are major highways affecting traffic flow, this is like a side street - it affects things but not nearly as much Reading Strategy: The author is actually simplifying here - saying "don't worry too much about this fourth thing" |
| As productivity rises, less labor is required per dollar of national product, or more goods and services can be produced with the same number of man-hours. | What it says: When workers get better at their jobs, you need fewer workers to make the same amount of stuff, OR the same number of workers can make more stuff. What it does: Explains what "productivity increase" actually means in practical terms Source/Type: Definitional explanation Connection to Previous Sentences: This takes the second factor from sentence 1 ("increase in output per man-hour") and explains it in clearer terms Visualization: - Before: 100 workers make 100 widgets - After productivity increase: 80 workers make 100 widgets, OR 100 workers make 120 widgets Feel relieved here - this is clarification, not new complexity! |
| If output does not grow, employment will certainly fall; if production increases more rapidly than productivity (less any decline in average hours worked), employment must rise. | What it says: Simple math - if we don't make more stuff, fewer people will have jobs. But if we make stuff faster than workers are getting more productive, then more people get jobs. What it does: Shows the basic relationship between two of our three factors Source/Type: Logical consequence Connection to Previous Sentences: This applies the productivity concept from sentence 3 to show its effect on employment Visualization: Scenario 1: Make same amount of widgets, but workers are 20% more productive → Need 20% fewer workers Scenario 2: Make 30% more widgets, but workers are only 20% more productive → Need 10% more workers What We Know So Far: How productivity and output interact to affect employment What We Don't Know Yet: Where does labor force growth fit in? |
| But the labor force grows, too. | What it says: Meanwhile, more people are looking for jobs. What it does: Introduces the complication of the first factor from sentence 1 Source/Type: Additional consideration Connection to Previous Sentences: The word "But" signals this complicates the simple relationship we just learned. This brings in the first factor from sentence 1 ("growth of the labor force") Visualization: Even if we created 10% more jobs (from previous sentence), but 15% more people are looking for work → unemployment goes up Key Insight: This is why the simple relationship from the previous sentence isn't enough |
| Unless gross national product (total final expenditure for goods and services corrected for price changes) rises more rapidly than the sum of productivity increase and labor force growth (again modified for any change in hours of work), the increase in employment will be inadequate to absorb the growth in the labor force. | What it says: Unless the economy grows faster than both productivity improvements AND the number of new job seekers combined, there won't be enough new jobs for everyone. What it does: States the mathematical relationship between all three factors Source/Type: Economic principle/formula Connection to Previous Sentences: This combines all three factors from sentence 1 into one mathematical relationship. It's the complete formula we've been building toward. Visualization: - Productivity grows 3% (need 3% fewer workers) - Labor force grows 2% (5% more people want jobs) - Combined effect: need 5% more economic growth just to break even - If economy only grows 4% → unemployment rises This is our complete framework - everything complex is now in one place! |
| Inevitably the unemployment rate will increase. | What it says: When that condition isn't met, unemployment must go up. What it does: States the consequence of the previous sentence's condition Source/Type: Logical conclusion Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the direct result of the "Unless" condition from the previous sentence not being met Simple restatement - the author is helping us see the key takeaway |
| Only when total production expands faster than the rate of labor force growth plus the rate of productivity increase and minus the rate at which average annual hours fall does the unemployment rate fall. | What it says: Unemployment only goes down when economic growth beats the combination of more workers + higher productivity - fewer work hours. What it does: Restates the complete relationship, focusing on when unemployment decreases Source/Type: Mathematical restatement Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the positive version of the relationship stated two sentences ago. Instead of "unless...unemployment increases," this says "only when...unemployment decreases" Feel confident here - this is the same formula restated positively, not new information! |
| Increases in productivity were more important than growth of the labor force as sources of the wide gains in output experienced in the period from the end of World War II to the mid-sixties. | What it says: From 1945 to about 1965, workers getting more productive was a bigger factor in economic growth than more people joining the workforce. What it does: Provides historical context and moves from theory to specific time period Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This takes our theoretical framework and applies it to a specific historical period. It tells us which of our three factors was most important during this era. Visualization: 1945-1965 economic growth breakdown: - 60% from productivity increases - 30% from labor force growth - 10% from increased demand What We Know So Far: The complete theoretical framework + which factor dominated in post-war period What We Don't Know Yet: What happened to unemployment during this period? |
| These increases in potential production simply were not matched by increases in demand adequate to maintain steady full employment. | What it says: The economy could produce a lot more stuff, but people weren't buying enough of it to keep everyone employed. What it does: Explains the problem with the post-war period - identifies which factor was insufficient Source/Type: Author's analysis of historical period Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains the consequence of the situation described in the previous sentence. Remember our three factors: this tells us factor #3 (demand growth) was the weak link. Visualization: - Economy could produce $100 billion worth of goods - People only wanted to buy $85 billion worth - Result: factories didn't need all their workers Key Problem Identified: High productivity + labor force growth, but insufficient demand |
| Except for the recession years of 1949, 1954, and 1958, the rate of economic growth exceeded the rate of productivity increase. | What it says: Most of the time during this period (except during three specific recession years), the economy grew faster than productivity improved. What it does: Provides specific data to qualify the previous general statement Source/Type: Historical data with specific exceptions Connection to Previous Sentences: This seems to contradict the previous sentence's implication that demand was insufficient. It's providing more nuanced data about the same time period. Visualization: Most years 1945-1965: - Productivity increased 3% - Economic growth was 4% ✓ This should be good for employment! But in 1949, 1954, 1958: - Productivity increased 3% - Economic growth was 1% ✗ This would hurt employment Complexity Note: We now have some seeming contradiction to resolve |
| However, in the late 1950s productivity and the labor force were increasing more rapidly than usual, while the growth of output was slower than usual. | What it says: In the late 1950s specifically, workers were getting productive faster than normal, more people were looking for jobs than normal, but the economy was growing slower than normal. What it does: Explains the specific conditions that created employment problems Source/Type: Historical analysis Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains why, despite generally good economic growth, there were still employment problems. It shows all three factors moving in the wrong direction simultaneously. Visualization: Late 1950s vs. typical post-war period: - Productivity growth: 4% vs. usual 3% - Labor force growth: 3% vs. usual 2% - Output growth: 2% vs. usual 4% Result: 2% growth couldn't keep up with 7% combined pressure Resolution: This explains the seeming contradiction - the general trend was good, but late 1950s were different |
| This accounted for the change in employment rates. | What it says: Those conditions in the late 1950s explain why unemployment went up during that time. What it does: Provides the direct causal conclusion Source/Type: Author's causal analysis Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the simple conclusion that ties together the historical analysis. It directly applies our theoretical framework to explain a real historical outcome. Simple conclusion - the author is helping us see that our framework successfully explains real events |
| But if part of the national purpose is to reduce and contain unemployment, arithmetic is not enough. | What it says: If we want to actually solve unemployment problems, just understanding the math isn't sufficient. What it does: Transitions from descriptive analysis to prescriptive policy discussion Source/Type: Author's opinion/argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This marks a major shift in the passage. We've established the theoretical framework and applied it historically. Now we're moving to "what should we do about it?" Major Transition: From "how unemployment works" to "how to control unemployment" |
| We must know which of the basic factors we can control and which we wish to control. | What it says: We need to figure out which of our three factors we're actually able to influence, and which ones we want to influence. What it does: Sets up the policy analysis framework Source/Type: Author's prescriptive argument Connection to Previous Sentences: This elaborates on why "arithmetic is not enough" - we need to think about control and desirability, not just mathematical relationships. Visualization: Our three factors: 1. Labor force growth - Can we control it? Do we want to? 2. Productivity growth - Can we control it? Do we want to? 3. Demand growth - Can we control it? Do we want to? What We Know So Far: Complete mathematical framework + historical application + need for policy analysis What We Don't Know Yet: Which factors we can/should control |
| Unemployment would have risen more slowly or fallen more rapidly if productivity had increased more slowly, or the labor force had increased more slowly, or the hours of work had fallen more steeply, or total output had grown more rapidly. | What it says: We could improve unemployment by: slowing down productivity growth, slowing down labor force growth, reducing work hours more, or increasing economic output faster. What it does: Lists all the theoretical policy options Source/Type: Logical analysis of options Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly answers the question posed in the previous sentence by systematically going through each factor and showing how changing it would affect unemployment. Visualization: Policy Options Menu: ☐ Slow productivity growth (make workers less efficient) ☐ Slow labor force growth (fewer people seeking work) ☐ Reduce work hours (spread work around) ☐ Increase economic output (grow the economy faster) Systematic analysis: The author is methodically working through our framework |
| These are not independent factors, however, and a change in any of them might have caused changes in the others. | What it says: These factors affect each other, so changing one would probably change the others too. What it does: Introduces the complication that makes policy harder Source/Type: Author's analytical qualification Connection to Previous Sentences: This adds realism to the theoretical policy options just listed. It's saying "but wait, it's more complex than just picking from the menu." Visualization: If we slow productivity growth → - Might reduce economic output - Might affect how many people want jobs - Might change work hour patterns It's like pulling one string in a spider web Important Complexity: The factors interact with each other |
| A society can choose to reduce the growth of productivity, and it can probably find ways to frustrate its own creativity. | What it says: A country could deliberately slow down productivity improvements and probably has ways to stifle innovation. What it does: Acknowledges that the first policy option is technically possible Source/Type: Author's concession about feasibility Connection to Previous Sentences: This takes the first option from the policy menu ("slow productivity") and says "yes, this is technically doable." Ominous tone: "frustrate its own creativity" suggests this is a bad idea |
| However, while a reduction in the growth of productivity at the expense of potential output might result in higher employment in the short run, the long-run effect on the national interest would be disastrous. | What it says: Sure, slowing productivity might create more jobs temporarily, but it would be terrible for the country in the long run. What it does: Argues against the option of reducing productivity growth Source/Type: Author's strong opinion/warning Connection to Previous Sentences: This completes the analysis of slowing productivity that began two sentences ago. After acknowledging it's possible, the author now argues it's a terrible idea. Visualization: Short-term: Slower productivity → More jobs ✓ Long-term: Less innovation → Weaker economy → Fewer jobs overall ✗ Clear Author Position: Slowing productivity is NOT the answer |
| We must also give consideration to the fact that hidden beneath national averages is continuous movement into, out of, between, and within labor markets. | What it says: We also need to remember that behind the big unemployment numbers, individual people are constantly getting hired, fired, and switching jobs. What it does: Introduces a new complexity about the nature of unemployment data Source/Type: Author's analytical point Connection to Previous Sentences: This seems to shift focus from policy options back to understanding what unemployment really means. It's adding nuance to our basic framework. New Perspective: Individual worker mobility vs. aggregate statistics |
| For example, 15 years ago, the average number of persons in the labor force was 73.4 million, with about 66.7 million employed and 3.9 million unemployed. | What it says: In 1962 (15 years before this 1977 passage), there were about 73.4 million people in the workforce: 66.7 million had jobs and 3.9 million didn't. What it does: Provides specific baseline data for the example Source/Type: Historical data Connection to Previous Sentences: This starts the concrete example promised by "For example" in the previous sentence. Visualization: 1962 Labor Force Snapshot: ???? Total: 73.4 million ✅ Employed: 66.7 million (91%) ❌ Unemployed: 3.9 million (5.3%) What We Know So Far: The "official" unemployment picture for 1962 What We Don't Know Yet: How this relates to the "continuous movement" mentioned |
| Yet 14 million experienced some term of unemployment in that year. | What it says: But actually, 14 million people were unemployed at some point during that whole year. What it does: Reveals the dramatic difference between average and actual unemployment experience Source/Type: Contrasting data Connection to Previous Sentences: The word "Yet" signals a major contrast. This shows that the 3.9 million average unemployment severely understates how many people actually lost jobs during the year. Visualization: ???? Average unemployed at any moment: 3.9 million ???? Total who experienced unemployment during year: 14 million ???? That's 3.6 times more people affected! Shocking Revelation: Unemployment affects far more people than the statistics suggest |
| Some were new entrants to the labor force; others were laid off temporarily. The remainder were those who were permanently or indefinitely severed from their jobs. | What it says: Those 14 million people fell into three groups: people looking for their first job, people temporarily laid off, and people who lost their jobs permanently. What it does: Categorizes the types of unemployment within the 14 million Source/Type: Analytical breakdown Connection to Previous Sentences: This explains what made up the surprising 14 million figure from the previous sentence. Visualization: 14 Million Who Experienced Unemployment: ???? New job seekers: ~4 million ⏸️ Temporarily laid off: ~6 million ???? Permanently unemployed: ~4 million Helpful categorization: Breaking down the big number into understandable pieces |
| Thus, the average number unemployed during a year understates the actual volume of involuntary displacement that occurs. | What it says: So the typical unemployment statistics don't show how many people actually lose their jobs involuntarily. What it does: States the key conclusion from the numerical example Source/Type: Author's analytical conclusion Connection to Previous Sentences: This summarizes the point of the entire example that started several sentences ago. It's the takeaway that explains why the "continuous movement" matters. Clear conclusion: The author is helping us see the main point of this complex example |
| High unemployment is not an inevitable result of the pace of technological change but the consequence of passive public policy. | What it says: High unemployment isn't caused by technology advancing too fast - it's caused by the government not doing enough about it. What it does: Makes a strong policy argument about the cause of unemployment Source/Type: Author's policy opinion Connection to Previous Sentences: This seems to return to the policy discussion we had earlier, but now informed by the data example we just saw. It's rejecting technological determinism. Strong Position: Unemployment is a policy choice, not inevitable technological fate |
| We can anticipate a moderate increase in the labor force accompanied by a slow and irregular decline in hours of work. | What it says: We can expect the workforce to grow moderately and people to work somewhat fewer hours, but not in a steady pattern. What it does: Provides predictions for two of our key factors Source/Type: Author's forecast Connection to Previous Sentences: This returns to our original three-factor framework, giving us expected future values for labor force growth and work hours. Visualization: Future Expectations: ???? Labor force: +2% per year ???? Work hours: -0.5% per year (irregular) ❓ Productivity: [not mentioned yet] ❓ Economic growth: [not mentioned yet] |
| It follows that the output of the economy—and the aggregate demand to buy it—must grow by more than 4 percent a year just to prevent the unemployment rate from rising, and by even more if the unemployment rate is to fall further. | What it says: Given those expectations, the economy needs to grow by more than 4% per year just to keep unemployment from getting worse, and even faster if we want unemployment to improve. What it does: Applies our mathematical framework to future conditions Source/Type: Mathematical calculation/prediction Connection to Previous Sentences: This takes the forecasts from the previous sentence and runs them through our mathematical framework from the beginning of the passage to calculate what economic growth we need. Visualization: Required Economic Growth Calculation: + 2% (labor force growth) + 3% (assumed productivity growth) - 0.5% (fewer work hours) = 4.5% minimum economic growth needed Practical application: Our framework gives us a concrete policy target |
| Yet our economy has seldom, if ever, grown at a rate greater than 3.5 percent for any extended length of time. | What it says: But the U.S. economy almost never grows faster than 3.5% for long periods. What it does: Reveals the gap between what's needed and what's historically achievable Source/Type: Historical fact Connection to Previous Sentences: This contrasts sharply with the 4%+ growth requirement from the previous sentence, setting up a policy problem. Visualization: ???? Growth needed: >4% ???? Historical growth: ~3.5% ???? Gap: -0.5% = Rising unemployment The Problem: We need growth rates we've never consistently achieved |
| We have no cause of complacency. | What it says: We shouldn't feel satisfied or relaxed about this situation. What it does: Emphasizes the urgency of the policy problem Source/Type: Author's warning Connection to Previous Sentences: This is the emotional conclusion that follows from the mathematical gap just identified. Clear Warning: This is a serious problem requiring action |
| Positive fiscal, monetary, and manpower policies will be needed in the future. | What it says: We'll need active government policies involving spending, money supply, and workforce programs going forward. What it does: Concludes with specific policy recommendations Source/Type: Author's policy prescription Connection to Previous Sentences: This directly addresses the "passive public policy" problem identified earlier and responds to the "no cause for complacency" warning. Visualization: Required Policy Response: ???? Fiscal policy (government spending/taxes) ???? Monetary policy (interest rates/money supply) ???? Manpower policy (job training/placement) Final Prescription: Active government intervention is necessary Complete Passage Arc: 1. ✅ Established mathematical framework 2. ✅ Applied to historical data 3. ✅ Analyzed policy options 4. ✅ Calculated future requirements 5. ✅ Identified the policy gap 6. ✅ Prescribed solution |
2. Passage Summary:
Author's Purpose:
To explain how unemployment works by breaking down its causes into simple factors, then use this understanding to argue that government policies can and should control unemployment rates.
Summary of Passage Structure:
In this passage, the author builds their argument in clear, logical steps:
- First, the author sets up a mathematical framework showing that unemployment is controlled by three main factors: how fast the workforce grows, how productive workers become, and how much the economy grows overall.
- Next, the author applies this framework to real history, showing how it successfully explains unemployment patterns from World War II through the 1960s, especially the problems of the late 1950s.
- Then, the author shifts from explaining how unemployment works to discussing what we can do about it, examining different policy options and arguing against slowing down productivity as a solution.
- Finally, the author uses their framework to calculate future needs, reveals that the required economic growth exceeds what America has historically achieved, and concludes that active government intervention is necessary.
Main Point:
High unemployment is not an unavoidable result of technological progress, but rather the consequence of insufficient government action. Since the economy needs to grow faster than it historically has to prevent unemployment from rising, active government policies involving spending, money supply, and workforce programs will be essential in the future.
3. Question Analysis:
This question asks us to identify the primary purpose of the passage – what the author's main goal or objective was in writing this piece. We need to look at the overall structure, the author's tone, and where the passage ultimately leads us.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
Our passage analysis reveals a clear six-step progression:
- The author establishes a mathematical framework for understanding unemployment (three fundamental forces)
- Applies this framework to historical data from post-WWII to mid-1960s
- Shifts from descriptive analysis to prescriptive policy discussion
- Examines policy options and argues against reducing productivity
- Calculates future requirements and identifies a policy gap
- Concludes with specific policy prescriptions
Key insights from our analysis show that the passage makes a "Major Transition: From 'how unemployment works' to 'how to control unemployment'" and ends with "Final Prescription: Active government intervention is necessary." The author takes a strong position that "unemployment is a policy choice, not inevitable technological fate."
Prethinking:
The passage structure moves systematically from explanation to prescription. While the author spends considerable time explaining how unemployment works, this explanation serves as the foundation for the ultimate argument: that government should take active steps to control unemployment through "positive fiscal, monetary, and manpower policies." The author is not just describing unemployment – they're building a case for future policy action.
Answer Choices Explained
A
Define the economic terms used in the discussion of employment
Why It's Wrong:
- While the author does explain some economic terms, this is not the primary purpose but rather a means to an end
- The passage moves far beyond definition to analysis, historical application, and policy prescription
- The bulk of the passage focuses on applying these concepts rather than defining them
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did I focus too much on the early definitional sections?
→ Remember that primary purpose questions require looking at the entire passage structure and ultimate goal - Am I confusing what the author does along the way with their main objective?
→ The author defines terms to build toward their real goal - advocating for policy action
B
Criticize the decisions of past administrations during recession years
Why It's Wrong:
- The author mentions recession years (1949, 1954, 1958) only as factual exceptions, not to criticize decisions
- There is no critical tone toward past administrations - the author presents this as neutral historical data
- The focus is on explaining patterns, not assigning blame for past decisions
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did I assume that mentioning problems means criticizing past leaders?
→ The author treats these as data points to explain unemployment patterns, not as policy failures - Am I confusing descriptive analysis with critical evaluation?
→ The author explains what happened without condemning the decisions that led to those outcomes
C
Call for the application of positive economic control policies in the years that lie ahead
Why It's Right:
- The passage builds systematically toward the conclusion that "positive fiscal, monetary, and manpower policies will be needed in the future"
- The author establishes the mathematical framework specifically to show why future government intervention is necessary
- The entire argument leads to demonstrating that required economic growth exceeds historical performance, necessitating policy action
Key Evidence: "High unemployment is not an inevitable result of the pace of technological change but the consequence of passive public policy... We have no cause of complacency. Positive fiscal, monetary, and manpower policies will be needed in the future."
D
Allay current fears about increasing unemployment
Why It's Wrong:
- The author actually heightens concerns about unemployment by showing the mathematical challenges ahead
- The passage concludes with warnings ("We have no cause of complacency") rather than reassurance
- The tone is urgent and calls for action, not comforting or fear-reducing
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did I think that explaining unemployment reduces fear about it?
→ The author's explanation actually reveals more serious challenges requiring urgent attention - Am I confusing analytical tone with reassuring intent?
→ The author maintains objectivity but the ultimate message is one of concern and need for action
E
Document the rise of American productivity since World War II
Why It's Wrong:
- While the author mentions productivity increases since WWII, this is historical context, not documentation for its own sake
- The productivity data serves to support the argument for future policy needs, not to celebrate past achievements
- The focus is on how productivity changes affect unemployment, not on documenting productivity growth itself
Common Student Mistakes:
- Did I focus too heavily on the historical data section?
→ This historical analysis is used as evidence for policy arguments, not as the main point - Am I missing how the historical information supports the forward-looking argument?
→ The author uses past productivity trends to calculate future policy requirements
Rate this Solution
Tell us what you think about this solution
Forum Discussions
Start a new discussion
Post
Load More