Sajjad1994 wrote:
Many people believe that because wages are lower in developing countries than in developed countries, competition from developing countries in goods traded internationally will soon eliminate large numbers of jobs in developed countries. Currently, developed countries' advanced technology results in higher productivity, which accounts for their higher wages. Advanced technology is being transferred ever more speedily across borders, but even with the latest technology, productivity and wages in developing countries will remain lower than in developed countries for many years because developed countries have better infrastructure and better-educated workers. When productivity in a developing country does catch up, experience suggests that wages there will rise. Some individual firms in developing countries have raised their productivity but kept their wages (which are influenced by average productivity in the country's economy) low. However, in a developing country's economy as a whole, productivity improvements in goods traded internationally are likely to cause an increase in wages. Furthermore, if wages are not allowed to rise, the value of the country's currency will appreciate, which (from the developed countries' point of view) is the equivalent of increased wages in the developing country. And although in the past a few countries have deliberately kept their currencies undervalued, that is now much harder to do in a world where capital moves more freely.
Hi experts
avigutman IanStewartI've checked all previous posts in this thread but would like to confirm one issue. Hope that you could share some of your thoughts when you have time.
I am curious when we see the word "could" in options, do we interpret it as "being able to do something" or "likely something could happen"? In some cases the difference between the two meanings does not prevent me from confidently eliminating or picking the options, but in some cases (in the third question), the difference bothers me.
Quote:
3. The passage suggests that if the movement of capital in the world were restricted, which of the following would be likely?
(A) Advanced technology could move more quickly from developed countries to developing countries.
(B) Developed countries could compete more effectively for jobs with developing countries.
(C) A country's average wages could increase without significantly increasing the sophistication of its technology or the value of its currency.
(D) A country's productivity could increase without significantly increasing the value of its currency.
(E) Workers could obtain higher wages by increasing their productivity.
The option (D) is the correct answer.
If "could" means "being able to do something," the option (D) would read:
a country's productivity is able to increase without significantly increasing the value of its currency. But I am not sure whether it answers the question, because I think that it can be inferred that if the wage increases are allowed, the productivity can go up without increasing the currency value, regardless of whether the capital movement is restricted.
(If the capital movement is free, the country has less chance of manipulating the currency value. If the capital movement is restricted, the country has better chance. But in both cases, if the wage increase are allowed, the productivity is able to go up and lead to a wage increase.)
On the other hand, I agree that (D) answers the question if the word "could" means "likely." This way, the option (D) would read:
a country's productivity might increase without significantly increasing the value of its currency. Yes such thing is possible, because a country has better chance of keeping the currency undervalued when the capital movement is restricted.
Experts, what would you recommend me to do when I see the word "could" in options? I can check the two meanings to make sure I do not lightly eliminate options, but I am worried that this process might take much time.
Meanwhile, could I confirm the reasons why (C) and (E) are incorrect?
Quote:
3. The passage suggests that if the movement of capital in the world were restricted, which of the following would be likely?
(C) A country's average wages could increase without significantly increasing the sophistication of its technology or the value of its currency.
(E) Workers could obtain higher wages by increasing their productivity.
(C) A country's average wages could increase without significantly increasing the sophistication of its technology or the value of its currency.Is (C) incorrect because of the part colored in green? After all, the technology is not related to or involved in the discussion about capital movement or currency value change. I think if "could" means "likely" in the option (C), this option, without the technology part, would be similar to (D).
(E) Workers could obtain higher wages by increasing their productivity.I feel that (E) itself is a not-bad inference from the passage, since if workers
generally increase their productivity, the country's average productivity will rise and thus make the wage grow. By comparison, if (E) said "an individual worker could obtain higher wage...," it would be less ideal as a single worker cannot affect a country's average productivity, in normal sense.
But, is (E) wrong because it does not really answer the question? In other words, is (E) incorrect because it says something true when the capital movement is free, and also true when capital movement is restricted?
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for helping me learn.
close
30 Jun 2019, 22:12
