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

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.

Answer: D

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.

Answer: D

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.

Answer: B

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.


This doesn't provide a comparison between different firms/industries -- instead, it compares profits and output in one industry. Eliminate (A).


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!
_________________

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.

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.
_________________

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.

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!
_________________

Question 2

For question 2, let’s consider (E) first:


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):


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!
_________________

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.

(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!

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.
_________________

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.
_________________

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):


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):


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!
_________________

Hello, a123bansal. Your query is not silly at all. In the context of the answer choice, a school can be thought of as a school of thought, an admittedly idiomatic expression, and a school of economic historians can be linked directly to many economic historians from the opening line of the passage. Similarly, we could say that one school of thought or one school of test prep companies argues that pre-thinking is crucial to CR, while another school would argue the opposite. In short, I would not use the word school in answer choice (B) against it.

Thank you for following up, and good luck with your studies.

- Andrew
_________________

Hi Saby,
You have asked a very deep question
The statement you mentioned from passage

lets's break the statement
"one cannot assume a direct correlation between the output level and the profit level of a given industry"
The meaning of above statement is one don't have direct correlation between output and profits.

Regarding this line " as these variables often move in opposite directions."
This means the criteria you use for measuring profit and output are completely different.
Opposite here doesn't mean that if profit increases-output decrease or vice versa.If this is true it will contradict the first statement.

I hope it helps

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.
_________________

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.


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:


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
_________________

"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.
_________________

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.

generis ammuseeru nightblade354 pikolo2510
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.
_________________