PT155 S1 Q19 ExplanationProductivity growth in industrialized nations

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Unclear Impact10% picked this

   The industries that rely most heavily on computer technology have been burdened by inefficiencies that have substantially

   This seems tempting, like an Alternate Explanation for why computer industries have struggled with productivity: It's not the computer technology, it's the inefficiencies. But, what inefficiencies? Do they relate to computer technology? It's hard to know whether this actually counts as an Alternate Explanation because it may be referring to inefficiencies caused by reliance on computer technology.

   10%
2. B

   No Impact8% picked this

   Productivity growth in many less industrialized nations has also dropped substantially since the

   We already knew that productivity growth had dropped in industrialized nations. Now we also know that it dropped in many less industrialized nations. Some people may have seen this as an Effect w/o Cause weakener (the effect of 'dropping productivity' is present even though the cause of 'computer tech' is absent, if we make an assumption that less industrialized nations have less computer tech). But the curious fact the author is really leaning on is that, amongst all that broad drop in productivity (something was more or less affecting everyone's productivity), there was a more concentrated spike in industries that are most reliant on computers, suggesting that something about reliance on computers exacerbates the productivity drop. We could make this answer start to feel relevant if it said, "Within less industrialized nations, the industries that relied most heavily on computer technology saw the smallest drops in productivity".

   8%
3. C

   No Impact: producing computer tech11% picked this

   Productivity growth in industries responsible for producing computer technology has increased substantially as computer technology

   This almost feels like a Cause w/o Effect weakener. The cause of "computer tech" is present but the effect of "dropping productivity" is absent. In fact productivity is through the roof! But industries responsible for producing computer tech are not necessarily industries that rely most heavily on computer tech. Toyota produces automobile technology. Postmates relies heavily on automobile technology. The conclusion is all about businesses increasing their usage of computers, not their manufacturing of computers.

   11%
4. D

   Correct67% picked this

   Within any given industry, the businesses whose productivity growth has been greatest have been those that have invested

   Why this is right

   This pretty much body slams the conclusion. The conclusion has a very pessimistic take on investing in computer technology: "businesses that did so probably didn't improve their productivity growth". If we suddenly said, "The businesses with the greatest productivity growth are the ones that invested most heavily in computer technology", that would definitely be a huge counterpunch. This piece of data heavily suggests that heavily investing in computer technology was good for productivity. If we were trying to categorize this answer, we could say that it is helping us argue the Anti-Conclusion. It's presenting data points that seem to go against the author's conclusion. And we could say that it speaks most to the shift between evidence that was about Silicon Valley companies (rely most heavily - Absolute) and a conclusion that was about small farmers trying to modernize (increase reliance on computer technology - Relative).

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

   67%
5. E

   No Impact: future tense3% picked this

   Within the next few years, recent technological advances will almost certainly make investments in computer technology among the most effective ways for

   This is forward looking, but the author's conclusion is in the present perfect, which means it includes the past up until the present. We can only dispute the truth of the author's conclusion by talking about the past. You can't dispute the truth of "Racism has been a problem in America" by saying, "Within the next few decades, we'll be eradicating it".

   3%