When industries rapidly apply

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite7% picked this

   is less likely to dislocate workers than it is to create job

   We'd want to hear that resisting new tech is more likely to dislocate workers, since when we resist, all employees lose their jobs, whereas when we rapidly apply new tech, only "many employees" lose their jobs.

   7%
2. B

   Too Strong / Contradicted: only1% picked this

   will affect only those who possess

   Not only is this strong wording the opposite of the safely worded conclusion we're looking for, in this case it seems to contradict the passage. We were told that when a company resists new tech, it results in the loss of all the employees' jobs. So it sounds like it affects everyone, whether or not they possess technical skills.

   1%
3. C

   Correct89% picked this

   cannot prevent job loss in the

   Why this is right

   This is derivable, since we were told that "firms that resist new tech will eventually be superseded by those that do not, resulting in the loss of all their employes' jobs. If something will eventually result in all employees losing their jobs, then it's fair to say it "doesn't prevent job loss in the long run". This is a weird answer because, although it's eminently provable from the 2nd sentence, it doesn't really involve the 1st sentence. Conversationally, it does, because the first sentence may have sounded like "Watch out -- when you apply new tech rapidly, many lose their jobs." And then the 2nd sentence is saying, "But ... it's not like you can prevent job loss in the long run. After all, when you resist new tech, you get superseded and all your employees lose their jobs".

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

   89%
4. D

   Opposite2% picked this

   eventually creates more jobs than it

   We'd want to hear that resisting new tech eventually destroys more jobs than it creates, since when we resist, all employees lose their jobs, whereas when we rapidly apply new tech, only "many employees" lose their jobs.

   2%
5. E

   Too Strong: must / any1% picked this

   must take priority over any attempt to promote

   This is hyperbolic strength, which we are hoping to avoid. Plus, we're told that resisting new tech eventually leads to the loss of all the employee's jobs. Why would we conclude that "resisting new tech should be our #1 priority!"

   1%