Loading...
In the 1970's there was an oversupply of college graduates. The oversupply caused the average annual income of college graduates to fall to a level only 18 percent greater than that of workers with only high school diplomas. By the late 1980's the average annual income of college graduates was 43 percent higher than that of workers with only high school diplomas, even though between the 1970's and the late 1980's the supply of college graduates did not decrease.
Which of the following, if true, in the late 1980's, best reconciles the apparent discrepancy described above?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| In the 1970's there was an oversupply of college graduates. |
|
| The oversupply caused the average annual income of college graduates to fall to a level only 18 percent greater than that of workers with only high school diplomas. |
|
| By the late 1980's the average annual income of college graduates was 43 percent higher than that of workers with only high school diplomas, even though between the 1970's and the late 1980's the supply of college graduates did not decrease. |
|
The passage presents a timeline puzzle. We start with 1970s oversupply causing small income gaps, then jump to late 1980s showing much larger income gaps. The twist is that college graduate supply didn't decrease, which normally would mean the gap should stay small or get even smaller.
There's no explicit conclusion - this is a paradox that needs explanation. The passage sets up a contradiction between what we'd expect (continued small income gaps) and what actually happened (much larger income gaps).
This isn't a traditional argument with premises supporting a conclusion. Instead, it's a 'resolve the paradox' setup where we have two facts that seem to contradict each other: (1) college graduate supply didn't decrease, but (2) their income advantage dramatically increased. The question asks us to find what explains this apparent contradiction.
Paradox - We need to explain how college graduates' income advantage grew from 18% to 43% even though their supply didn't decrease. This seems contradictory because normally when supply stays high, wages shouldn't improve dramatically.
The key claims are quantitative (18% vs 43% income differences, supply levels) and temporal (1970s vs late 1980s). We cannot question these specific numbers or timeframes, but we can explain what changed in the market dynamics.
For paradox questions, we need to find what changed between the 1970s and late 1980s that would allow college graduates to earn much more relative to high school graduates, even though college graduate supply stayed constant. We should look for factors that either increased demand for college graduates or decreased the relative position of high school graduates.