Technology is sometimes described as "driving" industrial and social change. Yet technology has no momentum of its own; its direction...
GMAT Reading Comprehension : (RC) Questions
Technology is sometimes described as "driving" industrial and social change. Yet technology has no momentum of its own; its direction is determined by many disparate considerations. If technology did have inherent momentum, one might expect production methods in a given industry to be the same throughout the world, but they actually vary considerably, for reasons that are readily apparent.
A study of an automobile company's factories in the United States and in England, conducted by Melman during the 1950's, illustrates this point. The workers in the United States used more power equipment than did the workers in England. Yet both factories made the same product, had similar engineering staffs, and had equal access to capital. Melman found that differences in the relative costs of labor and machinery operation accounted for the difference in mechanization. In the United States, an employer could buy 157 kilowatt-hours of electricity for the cost of hiring a worker for an hour. In England, the price for a worker-hour would purchase only 37 kilowatt-hours. Hence, to minimize the total cost of the product, the manufacturer bought more electricity and fewer worker-hours in the United States and more worker-hours and less electricity in England. In each location, managers selected the means of production that best maximized profits—a basic value of capitalist industry.
The passage suggests that the factory in England bought fewer kilowatt-hours of electricity than the factory in the United States for which of the following reasons?
1. Question Analysis:
The question asks us to identify why the English factory bought fewer kilowatt-hours of electricity than the US factory. This is a specific detail question that requires us to understand the economic reasoning behind the different production choices in each country.
Connecting to Our Passage Analysis:
From our passage analysis, we know that:
- The passage's main argument is that technology choices are driven by economic factors, not inherent technological momentum
- The Melman study provides concrete evidence showing US workers used more power equipment while UK workers used less
- The key insight comes from sentences 6-8: cost differences between labor and machinery operation explained the mechanization differences
- Specific data shows that in the US, one worker-hour's cost could buy 157 kilowatt-hours, while in England it could only buy 37 kilowatt-hours
- The conclusion was that manufacturers in each location chose the production mix that minimized total costs
Prethinking:
Based on our analysis, the English factory bought fewer kilowatt-hours because electricity was relatively more expensive compared to labor in England than in the US. The passage clearly states that cost considerations drove these decisions - managers selected production methods to maximize profits. In England, it was more cost-effective to use worker-hours rather than electricity because workers were relatively cheaper compared to electricity than they were in the US.
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage explicitly states both factories "had similar engineering staffs," indicating equal technological capability and willingness to innovate
- The difference in electricity usage was driven by cost considerations, not management attitudes toward innovation
- This choice suggests a subjective management preference, while the passage demonstrates objective economic decision-making
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage gives no indication that electricity availability was an issue in either country
- Both factories "had equal access to capital," suggesting similar infrastructure capabilities
- The explanation focuses entirely on cost differences, not accessibility or supply issues
Why It's Right:
- This directly reflects the passage's core explanation that cost differences determined production choices
- The specific data shows worker-hours were relatively cheaper in England (37 kilowatt-hours per worker-hour cost) compared to the US (157 kilowatt-hours per worker-hour cost)
- This choice captures the economic logic that drove managers to choose more worker-hours and less electricity in England
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage provides no information suggesting that English power equipment was less efficient than American equipment
- Both factories had "similar engineering staffs," implying similar technological standards
- The explanation focuses on cost ratios, not equipment efficiency differences
Why It's Wrong:
- The passage states both factories "had similar engineering staffs," suggesting comparable worker capabilities
- Worker skill levels are not mentioned as a factor in the production decisions
- The explanation centers entirely on economic cost comparisons, not worker competency