PT157 S3 Q5 ExplanationTaylorism, the early-twentieth-century industrial

Answer choices, explained

1. A

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   Sometimes measures that appear to promote efficiency are actually deleterious

   The word "it" at the end of this answer refers back to "efficiency." This answer claims that some measures that appear to promote efficiency are actually harmful to efficiency itself. But the stimulus does not claim that Taylorism harms efficiency — quite the opposite. The stimulus explicitly states that Taylorism resulted in "greater efficiency" and "increased productivity." The negative consequence of Taylorism described in the stimulus is reduced intrinsic worth of work, not reduced efficiency. This answer misidentifies what was harmed.

   2%
2. B

   Correct86% picked this

   Some developments in industry can benefit workers financially while making their work less rewarding

   Why this is right

   This answer perfectly captures the dual nature of Taylorism as described in the stimulus. Taylorism was a "development in industry" that benefited workers "financially" by increasing their standard of living, while simultaneously making their work "less rewarding in other respects" by stripping it of creativity and intrinsic worth. The phrase "in other respects" correctly identifies that the negative impact was non-financial — it was about the quality and meaningfulness of the work itself. This generalization fits the specific situation described in the stimulus like a glove.

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

   86%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match4% picked this

   Increased efficiency in industrial settings is sometimes accompanied by decreases in the amount of effort workers

   This answer claims that increased efficiency is "sometimes accompanied by decreases in the amount of effort workers devote to their jobs." But the stimulus does not describe workers devoting less effort — it describes their jobs becoming routine and repetitive. These are different things. A job can be routine and repetitive while still requiring significant effort. The stimulus says Taylorism changed the character of the work, not the effort workers put into it. Additionally, this answer frames the decreased effort as something workers choose, which is not how the stimulus describes the situation — Taylorism changed the nature of the jobs, not the workers' level of engagement.

   4%
4. D

   Bad Evidence Match6% picked this

   An increase in workers’ standards of living will likely involve an accompanying decrease in how much they

   This answer claims that an increase in workers' standard of living "will likely involve" a decrease in how much they value their jobs. But the stimulus describes a more specific causal structure: both the increased standard of living and the decreased intrinsic worth of work were caused by a third factor — Taylorism. This answer frames the relationship as direct causation between the two outcomes, omitting the common cause. Additionally, "how much they value their jobs overall" is broader than what the stimulus describes — the stimulus identifies a specific reduction in intrinsic worth related to creativity and talent, not a general decrease in job valuation.

   6%
5. E

   Unsupported Comparison2% picked this

   Workers who have greater than average creativity and talent are sometimes less efficient than workers who have

   The stimulus does not compare creative workers to non-creative workers in terms of their efficiency. It states that Taylorism reduced the role of creativity and talent in workers' jobs. That is a change in the nature of work over time, not a comparison between different types of workers at the same time. Nothing in the stimulus supports the claim that more creative workers are less efficient than average workers. The stimulus is about a tradeoff between financial benefit and intrinsic work quality, not about relative efficiency levels of different worker types.

   2%