GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 13 Dec 2019, 16:32

### 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

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

# During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Director
Status: I don't stop when I'm Tired,I stop when I'm done
Joined: 11 May 2014
Posts: 522
GPA: 2.81
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

Updated on: 11 Aug 2019, 04:18
15
Top Contributor
23
Question 1
00:00

based on 2037 sessions

81% (02:27) correct 19% (02:48) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

Question 2
00:00

based on 1954 sessions

79% (01:04) correct 21% (01:30) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

Question 3
00:00

based on 1948 sessions

59% (01:54) correct 41% (02:01) wrong

### HideShow timer Statistics

Line
During the 1980s, many economic historians
studying Latin America focused on the impact of
the Great Depression of the 1930s. Most of these
historians argued that although the Depression
(5)
began earlier in Latin America than in the United
States, it was less severe in Latin America and did
not significantly impede industrial growth there.
The historians’ argument was grounded in national
government records concerning tax revenues and
(10)
censuses, from which historians have drawn
and profit levels across Latin America. However,
(15)
governments in the early twentieth century are
neither reliable nor consistent; this is especially
true of manufacturing data, which were gathered
from factory owners for taxation purposes and
which therefore may well be distorted. Moreover,
(20)
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. Finally, national and regional economies
are composed of individual firms and industries,
(25)
and relying on general, sweeping economic
indicators may mask substantial variations among
these different enterprises. For example, recent
analyses of previously unexamined data on textile
manufacturing in Brazil and Mexico suggest that the
(30)
Great Depression had a more severe impact on this
Latin American industry than scholars
(Book Question: 460)
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

(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

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

OG 2019 ID's:
RC00333-01
RC00333-02
RC00333-04

Originally posted by AbdurRakib on 26 Jul 2016, 13:37.
Last edited by SajjadAhmad on 11 Aug 2019, 04:18, edited 1 time in total.
Updated - Complete topic (116).
Marshall & McDonough Moderator
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1683
Location: India
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2016, 22:26
8
2
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. The passage does not compare the impact of Great Depression on Latin America with other nations. Rather the passage is focused on the impact of Great Depression on the industrial growth 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. Global context?

C. illustrate the risks inherent in comparing different types of economic enterprises to explain economic phenomena - Incorrect. Out of context

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 - Incorrect. Same reason as A. The passage does not compare the impact of GD in Latin America with other regions.

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

Refer: Historians think that GD was less severe in Latin America and did not significantly impede industrial growth. The passage provides reasons to disprove the view of the historians.

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

Refer: "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."

A. During an economic depression, European textile manufacturers’ profits rise while their industrial output remains steady. - Incorrect. Focus is only on textile manufacturers.

B. During a national economic recession, United States microchips manufacturers’ profits rise sharply while United States steel manufacturers’ profits plunge. - Correct. We have two different industries: Microchip and steel. There is a variation between the 2 industries profits.

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. Only textile manufacturers are considered.

D. Although Japanese industry as a whole recovers after an economic recession, it does not regain its previously high levels of production. - Incorrect. Japanese industry as a whole is considered.

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. Same reason as before.

##### General Discussion
Current Student
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Posts: 58
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Jul 2017, 03:02
sanjana90 wrote:
Vyshak wrote:
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. The passage does not compare the impact of Great Depression on Latin America with other nations. Rather the passage is focused on the impact of Great Depression on the industrial growth 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. Global context?

C. illustrate the risks inherent in comparing different types of economic enterprises to explain economic phenomena - Incorrect. Out of context

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 - Incorrect. Same reason as A. The passage does not compare the impact of GD in Latin America with other regions.

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

Refer: Historians think that GD was less severe in Latin America and did not significantly impede industrial growth. The passage provides reasons to disprove the view of the historians.

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

Refer: "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."

A. During an economic depression, European textile manufacturers’ profits rise while their industrial output remains steady. - Incorrect. Focus is only on textile manufacturers.

B. During a national economic recession, United States microchips manufacturers’ profits rise sharply while United States steel manufacturers’ profits plunge. - Correct. We have two different industries: Microchip and steel. There is a variation between the 2 industries profits.

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. Only textile manufacturers are considered.

D. Although Japanese industry as a whole recovers after an economic recession, it does not regain its previously high levels of production. - Incorrect. Japanese industry as a whole is considered.

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. Same reason as before.

I am unable to figure out how AO is B in question no. 3? The passage talks about the US only in the beginning and nowhere mentions about steel and microchip industry of the US.

The question only asks for a strengthener of the argument in lines 25-27 - that economic indicators such as profits vary among different industries.
Only choice B mentioned 2 different industries (steel and manufacturing) with varying economic indicators.

The passage does not have to talk about the answer choices in order for them to be correct. Same as what we have learned in critical reasoning, a strengthener should be new information not previously stated in the question stimulus.
Intern
Joined: 23 Nov 2016
Posts: 10
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2017, 07:42
6
sanjana90 wrote:
Vyshak wrote:
1) The primary purpose of the passage is to

I am unable to figure out how AO is B in question no. 3? The passage talks about the US only in the beginning and nowhere mentions about steel and microchip industry of the US.

This is an analogy Question (type).
You need to find out what the given condition / situation is , here it is- sweeping economic
indicators may mask substantial variations among
these different enterprises
.
Now we need to use this idea to find our analogy.
Only in option B. Different enterprises are being talked about (United States microchips manufacturers& United States steel manufacturers) and the substantial variations . Ones profits rise sharply and the others plunge.
IIMA, IIMC School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1370
Location: India
WE: Engineering (Other)
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2018, 09:32
GMATNinja KarishmaB

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

I failed to identify the main conclusion and supporting premise here.
I understood below:
Author seems to be disagreeing with historians that
• Great depression was was less severe in Latin America than in US
and did not significantly impede industrial growth there

Supporting premise used by author against historians
• The premise used by historians ie economic statistics are neither accurate
nor reliable

Additional supporting premise used by author against historians
• 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

I could not proceed further.
_________________
It's the journey that brings us happiness not the destination.

Feeling stressed, you are not alone!!
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Posts: 426
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

14 Jul 2018, 17:01
1
GMATNinja KarishmaB

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

I failed to identify the main conclusion and supporting premise here.
I understood below:
Author seems to be disagreeing with historians that
• Great depression was was less severe in Latin America than in US
and did not significantly impede industrial growth there

Supporting premise used by author against historians
• The premise used by historians ie economic statistics are neither accurate
nor reliable

Additional supporting premise used by author against historians
• 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

I could not proceed further.

What i understood is

As per historians, great depression was less severe in Latin America than USA and great depression didn't delay Industrial Growth in Latin America.
Historians used data from National government records and government-sponsored industrial censuses to claim their assertion.

National Government Records--> Tax revenues and Exports
Government-sponsored industrial censuses--> Total Manufacturing Output and Profit Levels.

But as per Author, Historians claim is not reliable and not consistent.
Author specifically points out that Historian claim is not valid for MANUFACTURING DATA.

Then Author says:
1. Manufacturing data may be distorted
2. CANNOT assume a direct correlation between the output level and the profit level of a given industry. These variables often move in opposite directions.
3. National and Regional Economies are consist of Individual firms and Industry. Economic Indicator, which is very wide, may hide substantial variation among DIFFERENT Firms/Enterprises.

Then Author gives example of textile manufacturing of Brazil and Mexico and says GD has more impact in Latin America than historians considered.

adkikani to your question, please note "DIFFERENT Enterprises" which author mentioned in 3rd point. Only option B considers two different firms i.e. USA microchips manufacturers’ and USA steel manufacturers profits’
Other options talk about one industry only. So option B is correct.
Intern
Joined: 27 Aug 2018
Posts: 5
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

25 May 2019, 20:56
(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!
Intern
Joined: 05 Sep 2018
Posts: 12
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Aug 2019, 08:06
pollymonkey wrote:
(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!

This is a trap they are trying to draw you into. The key words referenced in the answer are similar to those in the passage, but the conclusion cannot be directly inferred from/supported by the passage.

The passage merely states 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."

This simply means that scholars originally thought (as an example) the Brazil + Mexico textile industry declined by 1% but actually it declined by 2% as a result of the Great Depression.

The answer is suggesting that this impact (the decline above as an example) was greater than the impact on Latin America as a region. In our example that would imply LatAm declined by <1%.
BUT the passage does not make any comparison between the two so that you could infer this.

For example it is perfectly possible that LatAm declined by 50%. In this case the passage would still support the fact that the decline in Brazil + Mexico textile industry was greater than originally thought, BUT NOT greater than the decline in LatAm as a region.

Hope this helps explain why B is wrong.
Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2019
Posts: 110
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
WE: Brand Management (Consumer Products)
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo  [#permalink]

### Show Tags

09 Nov 2019, 10:08
Here is my approach to question 3:

My understanding of "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." is that the author is implying that by only looking at general indicators, one might overlook varied data of component firms. (same as pollymonkey 's understanding)

A. During an economic depression, European textile manufacturers’ profits rise while their industrial output remains steady.
=> I think this choice is meant to strengthen the given statament as it demonstrates a similar case of divergent textile manufacturers out of the total industry, but the only flaw that makes it out is that it compares "profits" and "output" (if it had compared either "manufacturers' profit" with "industrial profits" or "manufacturers' output" with "industrial output", this choice would be worth considering.)

B. During a national economic recession, United States microchips manufacturers’ profits rise sharply while United States steel manufacturers’ profits plunge.
=> Though this choice doesn't address the "general-component" key point, it does tackle the part "substantial variations among these different enterprises.". Thus it's correct.
_________________
--- One day you will thank yourself for not giving up ---
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo   [#permalink] 09 Nov 2019, 10:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by