1000 CR Questions

**tushar_says** · 10-18-2005, 05:48 PM

Hi All,

Although there are existing threads for these two posts, am re-posting the same as am unable to grasp the reasoning provided for the Official Answer's.

would appreciate your help on these again

!

1. Contrary to the statements of labor leaders, the central economic problem facing America today is not the distribution of wealth. It is productivity. With the productivity of U.S. industry stagnant, or even declining slightly, the economic pie is no longer growing. Labor leaders, of course, point to what they consider an unfair distribution of the slices of pie to justify their demands for further increases in wages and benefits. And in the past, when the pie was still growing, management could afford to acquiesce. No longer. Until productivity resumes its growth, there can be no justification for further increases in the compensation of workers.

Which of the following statements by a labor leader focuses on the logical weakness in the argument above?

(A) Although the economic pie is no longer growing, the portion of the pie allocated to American workers remains unjustly small.

(B) If management fails to accommodate the demands of workers, labor leaders will be forced to call strikes that will cripple the operation of industry.

(C) Although productivity is stagnant, the U.S. population is growing, so that the absolute size of the economic pie continues to grow as well.

(D) As a labor leader, I can be concerned only with the needs of working people, not with the problems faced by management

(E) The stagnation of U.S. industry has been caused largely by factors—such as foreign competition—beyond the control of American workers.

SPOILER: Official Answer is A

2. Since the passage of the state’s Clean Air Act ten years ago, the level of industrial pollutants in the air has fallen by an average of 18 percent. This suggests that the restrictions on industry embodied in the act have worked effectively. However, during the same period the state has also suffered through a period of economic decline. The number of businesses in the state has fallen by 10 percent, and the number of workers employed has fallen by 12 percent. It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage above?

(A) During the last ten years, economic conditions in the nation as a whole have been worse than those within the state.

(B) Amendments to the Clean Air Act that were enacted six years ago have substantially strengthened its restrictions on industrial air pollution.

(C) Of the businesses that ceased operating in the state during the last ten years, only 5 percent were engaged in air-polluting industries.

(D) Several large corporations left the state during the last ten years partly in order to avoid compliance with the Clean Air Act.（C）

(E) Due to its small budget, the state office charged with enforcement of the Clean Air Act has prosecuted only two violators of the law since its passage.

SPOILER: Official Answer is C

My picks:

1. C
Choice C provides a logical reason that as the total share is increasing ["absolute size of the economic pie continues to grow "], so the percentage of share for workers should also be increased. This addresses the weakness in the claim that the economic pie is not growing and so the compensation increase is unjustified.
Also, option A is just a restatement of the reason mentioned in the question.

2. D

If several large companies left the state to avoid the air act, it confirms that the reduction in pollution can be indirectly attributed to the Clean Air Act instead of the the business decline as concluded in the passage. Thus this reason weakens the conclusion.
Option C suggests that only 5% of the companies that ceased operations were involved in air polluting activities and thus affected by the Act. This indicates that the majority of the businesses that ceased operations were responsible for the decline in pollution. So C actually strengthens the conclusion.

Please provide thy explanations! Am really confused on these

~~

Tushar

**ramanathansankar** · 10-18-2005, 11:38 PM

I too would like to dispute the OAs.

For me,

1). E

This argument mentions a direct relationship between productivity and economic growth. And it attributes indirectly the lack of the growth in productivity to its workers, effectively assuming that the increase in productivity can be related only to an increase in the output of workers. The weakness of the argument thus is causation - more output leads to more productivity and more productivity leads to more compensation. What if fails to acknowledge is the fact that the productivity could be more because of contributions from other elements which do not constitute the American workers. This is what is purported by E.

[A] is already mentioned in the stimulus where it says [Labor leaders, of course, point to what they consider an unfair distribution of the slices of pie to justify their demands for further increases in wages and benefits]

2). E

The problem that I have with C is that there is no relationship between the percentage of the industries operating and the percentage of the pollutants that these could industries could potentially create.

E is ambivalent because on the one hand it says that it is because of the small budget, it could prosecute only 2 companies whereas on the other hand, it prosecuted only 2 companies.

**andres** · 10-19-2005, 08:51 PM

for me it is clearly E and C.

For the first one A is a "simpler" way of saying the same thing as what is stated on the argument "Labor leaders, of course, point to what they consider an unfair distribution of the slices of pie to justify their demands". This position is what the argument is trying to counter, using an increase in productivity as the trigger to justify any kind of distribution. So, if this is the main discussion it cannot be just pointed to be logically weak?

On the support of E I agree with Ram explanation.

For the second CR, it is clearly C. The conclusion is "It is probable that the business decline, rather than the regulations in the act, is responsible for at least half of the decline in the pollution". In order to set this conclusion it uses evidence pointing to bussiness that disappeared because of an economic decline. Assumption: Business that dissapeared were remarkly envolved in the polluting industry. If this is true then it would be true that air pollution decline was mostly induced by economic factors.

Well, C states the contrary and threfore it undermines the conclusion.

**Boddy** · 10-20-2005, 02:53 PM

It is E and C for me too.

**shilpishrestha** · 06-08-2008, 06:25 PM

gud work....thanks !!

**sxculler** · 06-12-2008, 12:23 PM

1. A as the labor leaders point out the unfair distribution of the pie as well as we know that the pie is not growing currently and it is stagnant..
It has been stated clearly that the pie is no longer growing...

2. C....should prove that decline of businesses is not the reason and C clearly does that