Economist: Technology now changes so rapidly

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: no need for retraining3% picked this

   Workers did not need to be retrained when the pace of technological change was slower

   This has nothing to do with our conclusion, which is about the present tense and is about "large governmental job retraining programs", so in that sense it shouldn't be too tempting. It wouldn't hurt the author's argument at all if workers did need some retraining even back when tech didn't change so rapidly, so there's no reason the author needs to assume that there was no need for retraining in the past.

   3%
2. B

   Out of Scope3% picked this

   Large job retraining programs will be less efficient than smaller programs if the pace of

   Out of Scope: pace of change slows Relative vs. Absolute: less efficient This argument is only discussing what is currently true in a climate with a rapid rate of technological change. The author doesn't need to assume anything about a hypothetical world in which the pace of change is slower. This argument is only talking about whether or not a retraining program is efficient (Absolute language). The argument isn't making any claims or assumptions about being more / less efficient (Relative language).

   3%
3. C

   Too Strong: nothing is most efficient1% picked this

   No single type of retraining program is most efficient at retraining

   The conclusion only cares about large governmental job retraining programs, so other types of retraining programs are out of scope. If we negated this and said, "There is one type of retraining that is most efficient" that wouldn't hurt the argument at all (as long as that type of retraining isn't large governmental job retraining).

   1%
4. D

   Correct93% picked this

   Large governmental job retraining programs do not meet the short-term needs

   Why this is right

   This is the missing link we predicted. Had we not derived this missing link ahead of time, this answer has a couple attractive features: 1. the conclusion introduced a brand new term (large govt job retraining programs), so the correct answer was 95% likely to have that new term in it, and this is the only answer that does. 2. the answer choice is linking language from the conclusion (large govt job retraining programs) to language from the evidence (meet short term needs of individual companies). Finally, we could also get ourselves to like this answer by seeing that the negation would hurt the argument. If we said, "Hey, author -- large govt job retraining programs do meet the short-term needs of individual companies ... so they could be an efficient retraining, so they could still be a viable option in the effort to retrain workers efficiently."

   Skill tested: Necessary Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   93%
5. E

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   Technological workers are more likely now than in the past to move in order to find work for

   Out of Scope: move to find work This introduces a brand new concept of "moving in order to find work" and accuses the author of assuming some comparison between past and present in relation to how much tech workers are likely to move. We didn't talk about any of this, so the author hasn't committed to any ideas relating to it.

   1%