PT157 S2 Q15 ExplanationThe introduction of mass production

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Unsupported Comparison11% picked this

   highly trained workers have more purchasing power in modern industrial economies than workers who

   The stimulus never compares the purchasing power of highly trained workers to that of less-trained workers. The evidence says lower prices allowed workers generally to buy previously unaffordable goods — it does not distinguish between how much different training levels benefit from these lower prices. This comparison requires information that is not provided in the premises.

   11%
2. B

   Contradicted6% picked this

   the introduction of mass production techniques has decreased benefits for workers as it has increased the profits

   The stimulus does not say mass production decreased benefits for workers — it says lower prices allowed workers to buy goods they previously could not afford, which is an increase in benefits. The third premise introduces a vulnerability (job insecurity for less-trained workers) but does not establish that overall benefits decreased. Additionally, the stimulus never mentions profits for owners of industries, so the claim about increased profits is unsupported. This answer overstates the negative while introducing an unsupported element about profits.

   6%
3. C

   Contradicted2% picked this

   even the highest paid employees in modern industrial economies are never able to

   The stimulus says highly trained workers have more secure jobs than less-trained ones. This answer says "even the highest paid employees" can never achieve job security. The third premise contradicts this by establishing that more highly trained workers face less vulnerability than less-trained workers — implying greater (though perhaps not absolute) job security. The word "never" makes this answer especially extreme and unsupportable. If anything, the premises suggest more highly trained workers can achieve meaningful job security.

   2%
4. D

   Correct76% picked this

   a source of increased purchasing power for workers in modern industrial economies also undermines

   Why this is right

   This answer precisely captures the paradox described in the premises. The "source of increased purchasing power" is mass production's effect of lowering prices through fewer, less-trained workers. This same dynamic — reliance on less-trained workers — also "undermines their job security" because such jobs are more vulnerable to elimination. The answer correctly identifies that a single cause produces both a benefit (purchasing power) and a detriment (job insecurity). It stays within the scope of the evidence, avoids unsupported comparisons, and accurately reflects the tension the stimulus describes.

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

   76%
5. E

   Out of Scope5% picked this

   the percentage of workers who can afford to purchase goods produced by modern industrial

   The stimulus describes workers' jobs being vulnerable to elimination but does not say workers have actually lost their jobs in significant numbers. "Vulnerable to elimination" is a risk, not an accomplished fact. We cannot conclude that the percentage of workers who can afford goods is shrinking, because we do not know how many workers have actually been laid off or whether new jobs have replaced old ones. The evidence describes a potential threat, not an ongoing trend of actual job losses that would reduce the purchasing workforce.

   5%