Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 23:46 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 23:46
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2   3   
505-555 Level|   Business|   Short Passage|   Social Science|                              
User avatar
saby1410
User avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2017
Last visit: 10 Jun 2025
Posts: 183
Own Kudos:
23
Given Kudos: 93
Location: India
Posts: 183
Kudos: 23
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 14 May 2020, 06:38
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Harsh2111s
Quote:

can we say for option C that we are comparing output and profit levels with rest of the firms in latin america.

Quote:
C. During the years following a severe economic depression, textile manufacturers’ output levels and profit levels increase in Brazil and Mexico but not in the rest of Latin America.
In option C we are comparing output levels and profit levels of Brazil and Mexico with Rest of latin america
Show more
So what's wrong in this case is that it hasn't mentioned about different firms or particular firms we aren't comparing

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,780
 [3]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,780
 [3]
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 15 May 2020, 06:26
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nikitamaheshwari
GMATNinja
Harsh2111s
Piyu1
GMATNinja , Can you help with the 3rd Question. Why A is not correct?

Because option A comparing output with profit.
Harsh2111s is on the right track! I'll explain a bit more in case it's useful.

First, take a look at the "claim" discussed in question #3:

    "National and regional economies are composed of individual firms and industries, and relying on general, sweeping economic indicators may mask substantial variations among these different enterprises."

Here, the author says that you can't use general economic indicators to draw specific conclusions, because these indicators will miss variation in the performance of "individual firms and industries."

To answer the question, we need to strengthen this claim. So, we are looking for something that shows that different firms or industries are experiencing different results.

Quote:
A. During an economic depression, European textile manufacturers’ profits rise while their industrial output remains steady.
This doesn't provide a comparison between different firms/industries -- instead, it compares profits and output in one industry. Eliminate (A).

Quote:
B. During a national economic recession, United States microchips manufacturers’ profits rise sharply while United States steel manufacturers’ profits plunge.
Here we go! This shows that one industry (microchip manufacturing) had an increase in profits, while another industry (steel manufacturing) had a decrease in profits. This is exactly the kind of variation the author references in his/her claim. (B) is the correct answer to question #3.

I hope that helps!


Can you provide an example for the below statement ? - you can't use general economic indicators to draw specific conclusions, because these indicators will miss variation in the performance of "individual firms and industries."
For ex: If we use profits as an economic indicator to draw conclusions. Now, during economic recession, one would generalize and say that manufacturing units incur losses. Such conclusion do not take into account that different firms react differently. Some may profit while the other may incur losses. but since large no. of them incur losses our conclusion is based on that?
Show more
Your example is a good one! It provides an example of general indicators missing variation in the performance of "individual firms and industries."

BUT our task in this question isn't to come up with examples, it's to choose the answer choice that most strengthens the author's assertion.

The author argues that relying on "general, sweeping economic indicators" may mask substantial variation among "individual firms and industries". (B) shows variation among different industries and therefore strengthens the author's claim.

While your example is correct, there's no need to create further examples to answer this question -- we just need to determine whether each answer choice strengthens the author's claim, and eliminate the answers that do not.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
saby1410
User avatar
Joined: 06 Feb 2017
Last visit: 10 Jun 2025
Posts: 183
Own Kudos:
23
Given Kudos: 93
Location: India
Posts: 183
Kudos: 23
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 15 May 2020, 07:01
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja mikemcgarry VeritasKarishma

will you explain why option c of ques 3 is wrong ?
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,984
 [3]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,984
 [3]
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 18 May 2020, 00:33
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
saby1410
GMATNinja VeritasKarishma ChiranjeevSingh abhimahna @MartyTargetprep
Moreover,
one cannot assume a direct correlation between
the output level and the profit level of a given
industry as these variables often move in opposite
directions.

can you explain "these variable" refers to which entity and how it says that one cannot assume a direct correlation between
the output level and the profit level of a given industry as these variables often move in opposite directions.

please explain the above line how this variable often move in opposite direction doesn't direct impact the correlation between output level and profit level.
Show more

We know that
Output - Cost = Profit

The line simply means that one cannot assume that if output of an industry grows, its profit grows too. That, one cannot assume that if output of an industry increases, its profit increases too.
The line tells us that these two variables often move in opposite directions. So if the output of an industry grows, profit often slips (perhaps because cost rises significantly when one tries to increase the output, increased output may not be most efficient). e.g. larger conglomerates often have smaller profit margins compared with tightly owned family businesses.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,984
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,984
 [2]
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 18 May 2020, 00:45
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
saby1410
GMATNinja mikemcgarry VeritasKarishma

will you explain why option c of ques 3 is wrong ?
Show more

lines 25 - 27:

Finally, national and regional economies
are composed of individual firms and industries,
and relying on general, sweeping economic
indicators may mask substantial variations among
these different enterprises.

The line is saying that economic indicators may not capture the variations among industries.

Previous sentences:
The historians’ argument was grounded in national
government records concerning tax revenues and
(10)
exports and in government-sponsored industrial
censuses, from which historians have drawn
conclusions about total manufacturing output
and profit levels across Latin America.

These tell us that historians have used various economic indicators to draw conclusions about output etc. The highlighted portion is saying that these economic indicators do not explain the variations between industries.
Say the historians drew a conclusion that manufacturing output increased by 2% during depression. Perhaps the output decreased by 20% in textile while it increased by 5% in the steel sector.

B. During a national economic recession, United States microchips manufacturers’ profits rise sharply while United States steel manufacturers’ profits plunge.
Correct. Helps author's highlighted assertion

C. During the years following a severe economic depression, textile manufacturers’ output levels and profit levels increase in Brazil and Mexico but not in the rest of Latin America.
The author is not talking about output and profit in the highlighted sentences. He is talking about different industries' data not getting captured in economic indicators.
User avatar
homersimpsons
User avatar
Joined: 26 Aug 2020
Last visit: 08 Aug 2022
Posts: 274
Own Kudos:
471
Given Kudos: 114
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB'22 INSEAD Jan'21 Intake Ivey '22 LBS '23 Said '22 CBS '23
GPA: 3.15
WE:Accounting (Finance: Investment Banking)
Schools: ISB'22 INSEAD Jan'21 Intake Ivey '22 LBS '23 Said '22 CBS '23
Posts: 274
Kudos: 471
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 27 Aug 2020, 06:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
OE
Q1. The primary purpose of the passage is to
A. compare the impact of the Great Depression on Latin America with its impact on the United StatesB. criticize a school of economic historians for failing to analyze the Great Depression in Latin America within a global context
C. illustrate the risks inherent in comparing different types of economic enterprises to explain economic phenomena
D. call into question certain scholars’ views concerning the severity of the Great Depression in Latin America
E. demonstrate that the Great Depression had a more severe impact on industry in Latin American than in certain other regions
Main idea
This question depends on understanding the passage as a whole. The passage first describes the view of many economic historians of the 1980s. It next describes the evidence on which that view is based. The remainder of the passage raises issues about the rationale for that view.
A. The comparison between Latin America and the United States is only a small part of a larger argument analyzing studies of the Great Depression in Latin America.
B. The passage does not discuss a global context for the Great Depression.
C. The passage does not primarily aim to illustrate risks that may be generally inherent in explaining economic phenomena.
D. Correct. The passage claims that certain scholars underestimate the severity of the Great Depression in Latin America.
E. The passage does not claim that the impact of the Great Depression on Latin American industry was generally more severe than its impact on industry elsewhere.
The correct answer is D.

Q2. Which of the following conclusions about the Great Depression is best supported by the passage?
A. It did not impede Latin American industrial growth as much as historians had previously thought.
B. It had a more severe impact on the Brazilian and the Mexican textile industries than it had on Latin America as a region.
C. It affected the Latin American textile industry more severely than it did any other industry in Latin America.
D. The overall impact on Latin American industrial growth should be reevaluated by economic historians.
E. Its impact on Latin America should not be compared with its impact on the United States.
Inference
This question asks which conclusion is most strongly supported by the passage. The passage presents the rationale of some historians for their conclusion that the Great Depression did not significantly interfere with economic growth in Latin America. It then critiques that rationale and conclusion. By questioning the historians’ claims, the passage suggests that a reevaluation of the Great Depression’s effect on Latin America is needed.
A. The passage does not significantly support this. The passage indicates that, in fact, the Great Depression impeded Latin American economic development more than some historians had thought.
B. The passage does not significantly support this. The passage does not compare the impact on the Brazilian and Mexican textile industries to the impact on the Latin American region.
C. The passage does not significantly support this. The passage does not compare the effect of the Great Depression on the textile industry to its effect on other industries.
D. Correct. As presented in the passage, the passage author’s critique of the historians’ rationale fortheir claims provides significant support for the conclusion that their claims should be reevaluated.
E. The passage does not significantly support the claim that the comparison in question should not be made.
The correct answer is D.

Q3A. During an economic depression, European textile manufacturers’ profits rise while their industrial output remains steady.
B. During a national economic recession, United States microchips manufacturers’ profits rise sharply while United States steel manufacturers’ profits plunge.
C. During the years following a severe economic depression, textile manufacturers’ output levels and profit levels increase in Brazil and Mexico but not in the rest of Latin America.
D. Although Japanese industry as a whole recovers after an economic recession, it does not regain its previously high levels of production.
E. While European industrial output increases in the years following an economic depression, total output remains below that of Japan or the United States.
Application
The question involves applying information from outside the passage to a claim made by the author. The text in lines 25–27 asserts that broad economic indicators pertaining to a nation or region can obscure differences between individual firms or industries within that nation or region. The question asks which evidence would most strengthen the support for that conclusion.
A. This refers only to the relationship between a single industry’s profits and its output, not to general economic indicators.
B. Correct. The phrase a national recession refers to a general economic indicator. Suppose that in a situation described as a national recession, one industry (microchip manufacturing) prospers while another industry (steel manufacturing) does not. This would provide some additional support, over and above that given in the passage, for the assertion that broad economic indicators may mask differences between industries.
C. Economic differences between countries do not strengthen the support for the author’s assertion regarding variations among different firms and industries in one country or region.
D. This has no obvious bearing on how sweeping economic indicators can mask differences between industries or enterprises in a single country or region.
E. A comparison of different countries does not pertain to the assertion regarding variation among firms and industries in the same country.
The correct answer is B.
User avatar
jabhatta2
User avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2016
Last visit: 21 Apr 2023
Posts: 1,294
Own Kudos:
317
Given Kudos: 188
Posts: 1,294
Kudos: 317
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 07 Sep 2020, 07:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

On question 3, i chose option C, not B

Here is why:

Finally, national and regional economies are composed of individual firms and industries, and relying on general, sweeping economic indicators may mask substantial variations among these different enterprises

When i read this i was looking for the following for my strengthener in terms of criteria :

-- Concept of "masking" specifically.
-- Looking for an example of how high level indicators MASK variations / changes between different enterprises.

As an analogy, I was looking for overall GDP of Asia to be the same but going one level deeper, GDP of China and Japan are have increased significantly whereas GDP of India and Sri-lanka are have decreased significantly

I thought C did a much better job than B to show this analogy :

-- The high level indicators is regional Latin america output
-- Within Latin America, OVERALL output is the same or negative BUT variations in Brazil and Mexico actually increases

This gives an example of how masking can take place.

Sure Latin America/ Brazil / Mexico are NOT enterprises - but so what ? It is the "Criteria" in pink i am looking to match. It doesn't have to be necessarily "enterprises" only i have to look for in order to strengthen

B on the other hand DOES not have any masking
- US microchips manufacturers’ profits rise sharply while United States steel manufacturers’ profits plunge.

Where is the masking here ? They are directional-y opposite but we don't know what the aggregate high level indicator is in this case and whether the high level indicator is showing something else ?

Please let me know where is the issue in my thinking !
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,984
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,984
 [1]
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 10 Sep 2020, 04:11
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jabhatta2
GMATNinja VeritasKarishma

On question 3, i chose option C, not B

Here is why:

-- Concept of "masking" specifically.
-- Looking for an example of how high level indicators MASK variations / changes between different enterprises.

As an analogy, I was looking for overall GDP of Asia to be the same but going one level deeper, GDP of China and Japan are have increased significantly whereas GDP of India and Sri-lanka are have decreased significantly [/color]

I thought C did a much better job than B to show this analogy :

-- The high level indicators is regional Latin america output
-- Within Latin America, OVERALL output is the same or negative BUT variations in Brazil and Mexico actually increases

This gives an example of how masking can take place.

Sure Latin America/ Brazil / Mexico are NOT enterprises - but so what ? It is the "Criteria" in pink i am looking to match. It doesn't have to be necessarily "enterprises" only i have to look for in order to strengthen

B on the other hand DOES not have any masking
- US microchips manufacturers’ profits rise sharply while United States steel manufacturers’ profits plunge.

Where is the masking here ? They are directional-y opposite but we don't know what the aggregate high level indicator is in this case and whether the high level indicator is showing something else ?

Please let me know where is the issue in my thinking !
Show more

The passage talks about national and regional indicators only. When the question says "these" indicators (national and regional), you cannot assume that it could be talking about a more comprehensive indicator.
Only option (B) is correct.
avatar
aussieMBA
avatar
Current Student
Joined: 10 Aug 2020
Last visit: 07 Dec 2022
Posts: 98
Own Kudos:
39
Given Kudos: 22
Location: Australia
Schools: Judge '23 (A) LBS '24 (M$) Said '23 (A)
GMAT 1: 400 Q26 V20
GMAT 2: 600 Q42 V31
GMAT 3: 640 Q44 V33
GMAT 4: 720 Q49 V39
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Schools: Judge '23 (A) LBS '24 (M$) Said '23 (A)
GMAT 4: 720 Q49 V39
Posts: 98
Kudos: 39
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 18 Oct 2020, 01:53
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Can anyone explain why D is the correct choice for 2 instead of E? To me, the author suggests that the impact of the the Great Depression on LA was worse than the impact on the USA. I don't see where the author concludes that economic historians should reevaluate the overall impact on LA industrial growth.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,780
 [3]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,780
 [3]
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 22 Oct 2020, 08:54
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post

Question 2


blessthenoobs
Can anyone explain why D is the correct choice for 2 instead of E? To me, the author suggests that the impact of the the Great Depression on LA was worse than the impact on the USA. I don't see where the author concludes that economic historians should reevaluate the overall impact on LA industrial growth.
Show more
Quote:
2. Which of the following conclusions about the Great Depression is best supported by the passage?
Show more
For question 2, let’s consider (E) first:

Quote:
(E) Its impact on Latin America should not be compared with its impact on the United States
Show more
Although the author mentions that historians have compared the economic impact of the Great Depression on Latin America (LA) with that of the Great Depression on the US, he/she does not draw his/her own conclusions about this relationship. Sure, the author suggests that the economic impact on LA is worse than what historians estimate, but this impact is never compared to the impact in the US.

Moreover, even if the author did suggest that the impact of the Great Depression was greater on LA than on the US, this would qualify as comparing the two impacts (comparing does not necessarily mean to say that two things are equal). The author, obviously, would not do something that he/she is arguing against. So, we can eliminate (E).

And here’s (D):

Quote:
(D) The overall impact on Latin American industrial growth should be reevaluated by economic historians.
Show more
The author, after describing the conclusions of economic historians, says this:

    “The historians’ argument was grounded in national government records concerning tax revenues and exports and in government-sponsored industrial censuses, from which historians have drawn conclusions about total manufacturing output and profit levels across Latin America. However, economic statistics published by Latin American governments in the early twentieth century are neither reliable nor consistent...”

Then, the author goes on to detail how/why the evidence on which the historians’ conclusions are based is flawed. He/she concludes the passage with the statement that “recent analyses of previously unexamined data on textile manufacturing in Brazil and Mexico suggest that the Great Depression had a more severe impact on this Latin American industry than scholars had recognized.”

Although the author doesn’t explicitly conclude that economic historians should reevaluate the impact of the Great Depression on industrial growth in LA, he/she indicates that economic historians’ conclusions are based on shaky evidence and that additional evidence points to alternative conclusions. This definitely supports the idea that the historians’ conclusions need to be reevaluated. The question merely asks for a conclusion best supported by the passage, and (D) is definitely supported. So, (D) is the correct answer for question 2.

I hope that helps!
avatar
aussieMBA
avatar
Current Student
Joined: 10 Aug 2020
Last visit: 07 Dec 2022
Posts: 98
Own Kudos:
39
Given Kudos: 22
Location: Australia
Schools: Judge '23 (A) LBS '24 (M$) Said '23 (A)
GMAT 1: 400 Q26 V20
GMAT 2: 600 Q42 V31
GMAT 3: 640 Q44 V33
GMAT 4: 720 Q49 V39
WE:Consulting (Consulting)
Schools: Judge '23 (A) LBS '24 (M$) Said '23 (A)
GMAT 4: 720 Q49 V39
Posts: 98
Kudos: 39
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 27 Oct 2020, 21:33
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Thanks for the explanation GMATNinja. Although your explanation makes sense, how can I get to that level of understanding of the question in <1.5 minutes? I feel like I fall for the trap questions like D often.
User avatar
akadiyan
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 31 May 2017
Last visit: 20 Jun 2025
Posts: 736
Own Kudos:
698
 [1]
Given Kudos: 53
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
Schools: IIMA PGPX'23 Bayes Said '23
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: IIMA PGPX'23 Bayes Said '23
Posts: 736
Kudos: 698
 [1]
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 24 Dec 2020, 22:17
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
(Book Question: 460)
1. The primary purpose of the passage is to

A. compare the impact of the Great Depression on Latin America with its impact on the United States - INCORRECT
When you compare 2 entities , you need to present data on both the entities, but the author here discusses only about impact of great depression in Latin America

B. criticize a school of economic historians for failing to analyze the Great Depression in Latin America within a global context INCORRECT
The author presents the analysis of certain set of historians about impact of great depression in Latin america and in no area author presents that impact of LATAM in view of global context.

C. illustrate the risks inherent in comparing different types of economic enterprises to explain economic phenomena -
This is totally out of context.- INCORRECT

D. call into question certain scholars’ views concerning the severity of the Great Depression in Latin America - CORRECT

E. demonstrate that the Great Depression had a more severe impact on industry in Latin America than in certain other regions - Again, this passage does not compare LATAM with any other region INCORRECT

(Book Question: 461)
Which of the following conclusions about the Great Depression is best supported by the passage?

A. It did not impede Latin American industrial growth as much as historians had previously thought.-
This is exactly opposite of what passage is trying to prove INCORRECT

B. It had a more severe impact on the Brazilian and the Mexican textile industries than it had on Latin America as a region.
The textile industry in Brazil and Mexico is referred as an example and not as conclusion - INCORRECT

C. It affected the Latin American textile industry more severely than it did any other industry in Latin America.
Only textile industry is mentioned in this passage and comparing with any other industry in Latam is not supported in the passage - INCORRECT

D. The overall impact on Latin American industrial growth should be reevaluated by economic historians.
This is the overall message presented by the author - CORRECT

E. Its impact on Latin America should not be compared with its impact on the United States
This is not given anywhere in the passage - INCORRECT

(Book Question: 462)
Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the author’s assertion regarding economic indicators in lines 25–27 ?

The economic indicators say that there are individual industries w.r.t regional and nationwide economy and we cannot consider one industry as a benchmark for entire countrie's economy , so we should look for answer choice that should present a paradox within a region, option B correctly says the same.

A. During an economic depression, European textile manufacturers’ profits rise while their industrial output remains steady. - INCORRECT
B. During a national economic recession, United States microchips manufacturers’ profits rise sharply while United States steel
manufacturers’ profits plunge. - CORRECT
C. During the years following a severe economic depression, textile manufacturers’ output levels and profit levels increase in Brazil and
Mexico but not in the rest of Latin America.INCORRECT
D. Although Japanese industry as a whole recovers after an economic recession, it does not regain its previously high levels of production.- INCORRECT
E. While European industrial output increases in the years following an economic depression, total output remains below that of Japan or the United States.- INCORRECT
User avatar
RohitSaluja
User avatar
Joined: 02 Aug 2020
Last visit: 21 Sep 2024
Posts: 213
Own Kudos:
92
Given Kudos: 254
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Healthcare
Schools: HEC'22 (J)
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.8
WE:Consulting (Healthcare/Pharmaceuticals)
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: HEC'22 (J)
GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V40
Posts: 213
Kudos: 92
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 15 May 2021, 07:59
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
pollymonkey
(Book Question: 461)
Which of the following conclusions about the Great Depression is best supported by the passage?
A. It did not impede Latin American industrial growth as much as historians had previously thought.
B. It had a more severe impact on the Brazilian and the Mexican textile industries than it had on Latin America as a region.
C. It affected the Latin American textile industry more severely than it did any other industry in Latin America.
D. The overall impact on Latin American industrial growth should be reevaluated by economic historians.
E. Its impact on Latin America should not be compared with its impact on the United States


I still don't understand why B is wrong in Question No.2.
the passage says, using general data would mask the variation among different industries, implying that the historians are considering the textile industries at the same level as the whole Latin America.
And then the passage says, Brazil and Mexico textile industries suffered more severe impact than historians had recognized. Doesn't this mean the impact on the Brazilian and the Mexican textile industries is more severe than that is on Latin America as a region?

Can anyone help? Thanks!
Show more

I am probably late to the party but the author never compared the impact of Brazil/Mexico industry with the other regions of LA, so we can safely eliminate it.
User avatar
zoezhuyan
User avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Last visit: 11 Nov 2024
Posts: 418
Own Kudos:
94
Given Kudos: 147
Posts: 418
Kudos: 94
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 16 Jul 2021, 22:51
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dear AndrewN,
I missed main idea question,
Quote:
The primary purpose of the passage is to

A. compare the impact of the Great Depression on Latin America with its impact on the United States
B. criticize a school of economic historians for failing to analyze the Great Depression in Latin America within a global context
C. illustrate the risks inherent in comparing different types of economic enterprises to explain economic phenomena
D. call into question certain scholars’ views concerning the severity of the Great Depression in Latin America
E. demonstrate that the Great Depression had a more severe impact on industry in Latin America than in certain other regions
Show more

I picked up B.
after reading this passage, I thought the author challenges the view of some historians, he points out the data they gathered are not reliable nor consistent,

later, 3 points supports why he challenges.
- data is distorted
- cannot assume direct correlation between output and profit
- general and sweeping economy indicator mask some problems, imply need more overall.

especially above third point, I think the author challenge a view, and argues analysis should be evaluated more details (say different industries) and more global (=comprehensive or overall).

so I picked up B.

I have no idea what I missed,

genuinely need you help

have a nice day
avatar
AndrewN
avatar
Volunteer Expert
Joined: 16 May 2019
Last visit: 29 Mar 2025
Posts: 3,502
Own Kudos:
7,511
 [2]
Given Kudos: 500
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 3,502
Kudos: 7,511
 [2]
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 17 Jul 2021, 07:36
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
zoezhuyan
dear AndrewN,
I missed main idea question,
Quote:
The primary purpose of the passage is to

A. compare the impact of the Great Depression on Latin America with its impact on the United States
B. criticize a school of economic historians for failing to analyze the Great Depression in Latin America within a global context
C. illustrate the risks inherent in comparing different types of economic enterprises to explain economic phenomena
D. call into question certain scholars’ views concerning the severity of the Great Depression in Latin America
E. demonstrate that the Great Depression had a more severe impact on industry in Latin America than in certain other regions

I picked up B.
after reading this passage, I thought the author challenges the view of some historians, he points out the data they gathered are not reliable nor consistent,

later, 3 points supports why he challenges.
- data is distorted
- cannot assume direct correlation between output and profit
- general and sweeping economy indicator mask some problems, imply need more overall.

especially above third point, I think the author challenge a view, and argues analysis should be evaluated more details (say different industries) and more global (=comprehensive or overall).

so I picked up B.

I have no idea what I missed,

genuinely need you help

have a nice day
Show more
Hello, zoezhuyan. There are a couple warning signs in (B) that stand out to me, since we are dealing with a primary purpose/main idea question. I will highlight these below.

Quote:
B. criticize a school of economic historians for failing to analyze the Great Depression in Latin America within a global context
Show more
Right away, criticize... historians seems a bit strong as a description of what the author aims to do. I watch for judgmental language as I read, and nowhere do I see such language used in the passage to refer to the historians. The author appears to hold a different view, that much is clear, but the historians are given reasonable treatment throughout, not attacked by the author. The first dozen lines or so of the passage present the views of the historians in a straightforward manner, without commentary. Then, the word however triggers a discussion that continues for the rest of the passage, in which the author brings up specific points to consider against the views of the historians, the same three points you have outlined above:

  • The statistics cited are neither reliable nor consistent
  • A direct correlation should not be assumed between output and profit of a given industry
  • Reliance on general, sweeping economic indicators may mask substantial variations within different enterprises

Still, there is not exactly a criticism of the historians themselves, and we have run out of passage real estate to find such a criticism. I also highlighted the second part of the answer choice because pigeonholing information is a common way that the test may steer a reasonable answer into incorrect territory. Here, is the author criticizing historians because or on the basis that they fail, another strong, judgmental word, to consider Depression-era conditions in Latin America within a global—i.e. around the world/globe, not simply larger—context? Where is this notion mentioned in the three bullet points above? I suppose you may be looking to extrapolate something from the example at the end of the passage about Brazil and Mexico, but that is a stretch.

In short, we have two compelling reasons to doubt (B). We should not be looking to make an answer choice fit our interpretation; the correct answer choice should be the least debatable—we should not encounter too much resistance.

Look at (D) again by comparison:

Quote:
D. call into question certain scholars’ views concerning the severity of the Great Depression in Latin America
Show more
First off, notice the vague, cautious language in the beginning. We do not even get economic historians, just certain scholars. Believe it or not, this sort of language is often used in correct answers to "big idea" types of questions. It is the opposite of language that is too narrow, making it more broadly applicable (and harder to argue against). Then, does the passage call views into question? That is hard to debate, given the shift that starts with however just before line 15. Finally, are the views about (or concerning) the right topic? Again, the answer is yes. Look at the bookends of the passage:

First line—During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America focused on the impact of the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Last line—... the Great Depression had a more severe impact on this Latin American industry than scholars had recognized.

If the passage starts and ends on the same general topic, the very topic that serves as the basis for the views held by the group of people mentioned in (D), then the answer choice starts to look better and better. In short, (D) is a much safer, much less contentious, answer than (B), with its overreaching and narrow language.

I hope that helps you understand this one. There are also a few explanations above of the other answer choices.

- Andrew
User avatar
kittle
User avatar
Joined: 11 May 2021
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 318
Own Kudos:
161
Given Kudos: 618
Products:
GMAT Club Tests
Posts: 318
Kudos: 161
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 18 Oct 2021, 10:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja, can you please explain this to me? - how is D option the right answer here? I am unable to discern that. Thank you very much. Please help as my GMAT exam is approaching near.

Which of the following conclusions about the Great Depression is best supported by the passage?

A. It did not impede Latin American industrial growth as much as historians had previously thought.

B. It had a more severe impact on the Brazilian and the Mexican textile industries than it had on Latin America as a region.

C. It affected the Latin American textile industry more severely than it did any other industry in Latin America.

D. The overall impact on Latin American industrial growth should be reevaluated by economic historians.

E. Its impact on Latin America should not be compared with its impact on the United States.
User avatar
Dinesh654
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jun 2021
Last visit: 11 Aug 2024
Posts: 155
Own Kudos:
9
Given Kudos: 217
Status:In learning mode...
Location: India
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Products:
My Reviews
GMAT 1: 600 Q46 V27
Posts: 155
Kudos: 9
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 17 May 2022, 12:54
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hello experts,

CHoice A of Q2
Although its asking us to choose a conclusion,
still choice A is right. right?
A seems like an inference to me.

historians thought the economic depression in Latin America was less severe than U.S.

and hence it can paraphrased as choice A,
It didn't impede Latin American industrial growth as much as historial though.

It could be less or more but not same as what historians thought.

I got stuck in A, because it was also right.
I chose C because overall this is what author wanted to say.
User avatar
MartyTargetTestPrep
User avatar
Target Test Prep Representative
Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Last visit: 11 Aug 2023
Posts: 3,476
Own Kudos:
5,579
 [1]
Given Kudos: 1,430
Status:Chief Curriculum and Content Architect
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51
Posts: 3,476
Kudos: 5,579
 [1]
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 18 May 2022, 04:03
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dcoolguy
Hello experts,

CHoice A of Q2
Although its asking us to choose a conclusion,
still choice A is right. right?
A seems like an inference to me.

historians thought the economic depression in Latin America was less severe than U.S.

and hence it can paraphrased as choice A,
It didn't impede Latin American industrial growth as much as historial though.

It could be less or more but not same as what historians thought.

I got stuck in A, because it was also right.
I chose C because overall this is what author wanted to say.
Show more
"Did not x as much as" is usually understood to mean "did x less than."

So, as choice (A) would be most commonly understood, choice (A) conveys the opposite of what the passage says.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,780
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,780
 [2]
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 23 May 2022, 08:13
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
dcoolguy
Hello experts,

CHoice A of Q2
Although its asking us to choose a conclusion,
still choice A is right. right?
A seems like an inference to me.

historians thought the economic depression in Latin America was less severe than U.S.

and hence it can paraphrased as choice A,
It didn't impede Latin American industrial growth as much as historial though.

It could be less or more but not same as what historians thought.

I got stuck in A, because it was also right.
I chose C because overall this is what author wanted to say.
Show more
Let's start by breaking down the passage.

First, the author tells us that historians have argued that the Great Depression was less severe in Latin America than in the United States, and that it did not "significantly impede industrial growth" there. This argument is based on economic statistics published by Latin American governments.

Next, the author calls into question the validity of these statistics, and gives several reasons why they may be flawed.

Let's now consider (A):

Quote:
Which of the following conclusions about the Great Depression is best supported by the passage?

A. It did not impede Latin American industrial growth as much as historians had previously thought.
Show more
Based on the passage, we know the author believes the evidence cited by historians is likely flawed. However, we don't how these flaws would affect the historians' conclusion, or what the actual truth might be. In reality, maybe the Great Depression impeded growth even more than historians thought? Or maybe, when better evidence is discovered, it will actually confirm the historians' conclusion?

Either way, we have no reason to believe the author thinks the Great Depression impeded industrial growth less than previously thought. All we know is that the evidence cited by the historians is likely flawed. For this reason, (A) is incorrect.

Let's examine (C):

Quote:
C. It affected the Latin American textile industry more severely than it did any other industry in Latin America.
Show more
The author points out that "recent analyses of previously unexamined data on textile manufacturing in Brazil and Mexico suggest that the Great Depression had a more severe impact on this Latin American industry than scholars had recognized."

Notice the author doesn't tell us how the Great Depression affected other Latin American industries, but only that it affected the textile industry more than "scholars had recognized." Maybe other industries were just as affected as the textile industry? Or maybe they were affected even more severely?

Either way, the passage only suggests that the effect on the textile industry was more severe than previously thought. But we can't conclude from this that the effect was more severe than it was on any other industry in Latin America.

Overall, since the passage doesn't suggest that the Great Depression affected the Latin American textile industry more severely than "any other industry in Latin America," (C) is incorrect.

I hope that helps!
User avatar
a123bansal
User avatar
Joined: 02 Apr 2020
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 27
Own Kudos:
3
Given Kudos: 85
Posts: 27
Kudos: 3
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America 30 Jul 2022, 01:34
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
AndrewN
zoezhuyan
dear
Quote:
The primary purpose of the passage is to

A. compare the impact of the Great Depression on Latin America with its impact on the United States
B. criticize a school of economic historians for failing to analyze the Great Depression in Latin America within a global context
C. illustrate the risks inherent in comparing different types of economic enterprises to explain economic phenomena
D. call into question certain scholars’ views concerning the severity of the Great Depression in Latin America
E. demonstrate that the Great Depression had a more severe impact on industry in Latin America than in certain other regions

I picked up B.
after reading this passage, I thought the author challenges the view of some historians, he points out the data they gathered are not reliable nor consistent,

later, 3 points supports why he challenges.
- data is distorted
- cannot assume direct correlation between output and profit
- general and sweeping economy indicator mask some problems, imply need more overall.

especially above third point, I think the author challenge a view, and argues analysis should be evaluated more details (say different industries) and more global (=comprehensive or overall).

so I picked up B.

I have no idea what I missed,

genuinely need you help

have a nice day
Hello, zoezhuyan. There are a couple warning signs in (B) that stand out to me, since we are dealing with a primary purpose/main idea question. I will highlight these below.

Quote:
B. criticize a school of economic historians for failing to analyze the Great Depression in Latin America within a global context
Right away, criticize... historians seems a bit strong as a description of what the author aims to do. I watch for judgmental language as I read, and nowhere do I see such language used in the passage to refer to the historians. The author appears to hold a different view, that much is clear, but the historians are given reasonable treatment throughout, not attacked by the author. The first dozen lines or so of the passage present the views of the historians in a straightforward manner, without commentary. Then, the word however triggers a discussion that continues for the rest of the passage, in which the author brings up specific points to consider against the views of the historians, the same three points you have outlined above:

  • The statistics cited are neither reliable nor consistent
  • A direct correlation should not be assumed between output and profit of a given industry
  • Reliance on general, sweeping economic indicators may mask substantial variations within different enterprises

Still, there is not exactly a criticism of the historians themselves, and we have run out of passage real estate to find such a criticism. I also highlighted the second part of the answer choice because pigeonholing information is a common way that the test may steer a reasonable answer into incorrect territory. Here, is the author criticizing historians because or on the basis that they fail, another strong, judgmental word, to consider Depression-era conditions in Latin America within a global—i.e. around the world/globe, not simply larger—context? Where is this notion mentioned in the three bullet points above? I suppose you may be looking to extrapolate something from the example at the end of the passage about Brazil and Mexico, but that is a stretch.

In short, we have two compelling reasons to doubt (B). We should not be looking to make an answer choice fit our interpretation; the correct answer choice should be the least debatable—we should not encounter too much resistance.

Look at (D) again by comparison:

Quote:
D. call into question certain scholars’ views concerning the severity of the Great Depression in Latin America
First off, notice the vague, cautious language in the beginning. We do not even get economic historians, just certain scholars. Believe it or not, this sort of language is often used in correct answers to "big idea" types of questions. It is the opposite of language that is too narrow, making it more broadly applicable (and harder to argue against). Then, does the passage call views into question? That is hard to debate, given the shift that starts with however just before line 15. Finally, are the views about (or concerning) the right topic? Again, the answer is yes. Look at the bookends of the passage:

First line—During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America focused on the impact of the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Last line—... the Great Depression had a more severe impact on this Latin American industry than scholars had recognized.

If the passage starts and ends on the same general topic, the very topic that serves as the basis for the views held by the group of people mentioned in (D), then the answer choice starts to look better and better. In short, (D) is a much safer, much less contentious, answer than (B), with its overreaching and narrow language.

I hope that helps you understand this one. There are also a few explanations above of the other answer choices.

- Andrew
Show more

Hi AndrewN

Thanks for this wonderful explanation.

I have a very silly doubt. Please bear with me.

B option used the word "school" and nowhere in the passage we have discussed the same hence can it be the reason to eliminate option B.

Please Help.
   1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
Sajjad1994
GRE Forum Moderator
17289 posts
miag
188 posts