Options A and E are top contenders.
B is out 'cos the journalists never mentioned that; in fact, the author suggested otherwise.
C: Rather, the author suggest that the effect of labor productivity downplayed the stated position of the journalists
D: the passage talks about "growth rate" and not "amount" of GDP between the two periods
A: true the journalists relied on the higher '97GDP in saying that the economy performed excellently.
However, the author went further to prove that a snapshot view of the differing GDP's is not enough.
In doing this, the author made various assertions.
(i) Real GDP is usually higher than ever before...the GDP has been growing at a SLOWER RATE in the last 24 years.
However, GDP in ’97 grew by 1% LESS than observed between 1873-1987:
(ii) Given that a higher %tage were in d labor force in ’97, the growth rate for ’97 ought to be > Avg growth
rate for 1873-1987; But that was not the case. How can we say the economy performed ideally?
(iii) GDP is a measure at which labor productivity.grows.
Labor productivity rate for 1873-1987 =2%; if that for '97 were the same, then the real 97GDP would have
been > 1873-1987Avg GDP. (’cos 97 had larger workforce)
But no, Labor prod in 97GDP grew by ONLY 1%; hence, real 97GDP GREW MORE SLOWLY than the Avg 73-87GDP
The author used various economic factors between the 2 periods to show that real GDP growth for 97 was
at a rate lower than the rate for 1873-1987. In that case, how can the journalists say that the '97 economy
did ideally? It was supposed to perform even better given the same opportunity.
The author faulted the journalists by stating comparisons in proper historical context.
KUDOS me if you feel my contribution has helped you.