Historically, famines have generally been followed by periods of risin

Question

Historically, famines have generally been followed by periods of rising wages, because when a labor force is diminished, workers are more valuable in accordance with the law of supply and demand. The Irish potato famine of the 1840s is an exception; it resulted in the death or emigration of half of Ireland's population, but there was no significant rise in the average wages in Ireland in the following decade.
Which one of the following, if true, would LEAST contribute to an explanation of the exception to the generalization?

(A) Improved medical care reduced the mortality rate among able-bodied adults in the decade following the famine to below prefamine levels.
(B) Eviction policies of the landowners in Ireland were designed to force emigration of the elderly and infirm, who could not work, and to retain a high percentage of able-bodied workers.
(C) Advances in technology increased the efficiency of industry and agriculture, and so allowed maintenance of economic output with less demand for labor.
(D) The birth rate increased during the decade following the famine, and this compensated for much of the loss of population that was due to the famine.
(E) England, which had political control of Ireland, legislated artificially low wages to provide English-owned industry and agriculture in Ireland with cheap labor.

dinesh86 · Answer

(D) The birth rate increased during the decade following the famine, and this compensated for much of the loss of population that was due to the famine.

+1 for D as it is the only option which does not talk about workers.

mohitwadhwani2006 · Answer

Only option which does not say anythng about workers instead talk about birth rate . How does birth rate can compensate for low wages.

JarvisR · Answer

B Vs D. Why not B ?
would LEAST contribute to an explanation of the exception to the generalization
(B) Eviction policies of the landowners in Ireland were designed to force emigration of the elderly and infirm, who could not work, and to retain a high percentage of able-bodied workers.

Removing elderly and infirm ,who could not work, from the picture doesn't change equation much.So this still doesn't explain why the wages remained low. 
Appreciate any inputs on this? Also is it from MGmat? I couldn't find it at their forum.

BassanioGratiano · Answer

I also picked B. I did some research from the Manhattan Prep forum so I believe these explanations are accurate reasons as to why D is the correct answer.

So we need to find an answer choice that explains the least as to WHY HALF THE POPULATION DISAPPEARED AND NO RISE IN WAGES OCCURRED. Please note in the premise that the reason wages were increased because the lack of workers made labor so much more expensive.

lack of workers = more expensive labor = increased wages

(A) Improved medical care reduced the mortality rate among able-bodied adults in the decade following the famine to below prefamine levels.
 Medical care improved and thus less people are dying. This means that the labor force did not diminish as much as it could have been. It's a good reason why wages are still high, because the labor force is still existent.

(B) Eviction policies of the landowners in Ireland were designed to force emigration of the elderly and infirm, who could not work, and to retain a high percentage of able-bodied workers.
 B was the most missed answer. It states that the elderly were evicted and thus forced to leave the country. It also states that the elderly couldn't work anyway and that Ireland retained a high percentage of their labor force. B is a sound reason as to why the population of Ireland was severely cut but why the wages did not reduce.

(C) Advances in technology increased the efficiency of industry and agriculture, and so allowed maintenance of economic output with less demand for labor.
 If technology was so efficient then Ireland probably did not need workers. Thus we don't need to pay workers extra.

(D) The birth rate increased during the decade following the famine, and this compensated for much of the loss of population that was due to the famine.
 Babies don't make up the labor force. Plain and simple. Even in the next decade these kids will still be too young to be part of the workforce.

(E) England, which had political control of Ireland, legislated artificially low wages to provide English-owned industry and agriculture in Ireland with cheap labor.
 States that England kept wages low. Simple to rule out.

sleepynut · Answer

Hi experts,
Why not (B)?
The higher percentage of able-bodied workers doesn't increase the actual number of workers.

Please advise
Thanks

sobby · Answer

My reasoning :

Argument says that during famines work force diminishes that cause increased wages for worker after famine..Ireland is exception.

B --says that in ire land workforce is not decreased as only elderly and infirm ppl (who could not work) are emigrated .--it gives a reason why wages were stable in Ireland as Ireland have adequate supply of workers....

D--Says birth rate increased ...there is nothing about workforce ....

Arro44 · Answer

D - An increasing birth rate does not directly have an influence on the wage situation, as there is a significant timeframe (probably around two decades) until these newly born children affect the labour market.

All other answer choices provide some form of suitable explanation as to why the wage situation after the potato famine was an exception from the general rule.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Chris

richirish · Answer

D is such a simple choice, birth rate means more babies who obviously won't reaching working age until at least another decade, took me 45 seconds, happy to help if needed!

AnkitNandwani1 · Answer

So, the problem is about explaining why the Irish potato famine didn't result in rising wages even though a lot of people died or left, which should have made workers more valuable according to supply and demand. The question asks which option would LEAST contribute to explaining this exception.

First, let me recap the situation. Normally, after a famine reduces the labor force, wages go up because there are fewer workers (lower supply) so their value (wages) increases. But in Ireland after the 1840s famine, even though half the population was gone, wages didn't rise significantly. So we need to find factors that explain why the expected wage increase didn't happen. The LEAST helpful factor would be the one that either doesn't affect the supply and demand of labor or maybe even suggests that wages should have risen, thereby contradicting the exception.

Looking at the options:

A. Improved medical care reduced mortality among able-bodied adults post-famine. Hmm. If fewer able-bodied adults were dying, maybe the labor force wasn't as diminished as we thought. But wait, the famine already happened, so if medical care improved after, it might have actually helped keep the workforce from declining further. But the famine already caused a huge loss. If mortality decreased after, maybe the population started recovering, which could mean more workers, but this is in the decade following. If mortality went below prefamine levels, maybe the population rebounded, keeping labor supply up. So this could explain why wages didn't rise. So A might be a contributing explanation. Not sure yet.

B. Eviction policies targeted the elderly and infirm, making them emigrate, while keeping able-bodied workers. Oh, so the ones who left couldn't work anyway, so the actual workforce wasn't reduced as much. So the supply of labor didn't decrease as expected, hence no wage increase. That explains the exception. So B is a good explanation, so it's not the answer we're looking for since we need the LEAST helpful.

C. Technology advances increased efficiency, so less labor needed. Even if there were fewer workers, if technology allowed doing more with less, the demand for labor decreased. So even if supply went down, demand went down too, so wages might not rise. That makes sense as an explanation, so C is a good one. Not the answer.

D. Birth rate increased, compensating for population loss. If after the famine, the population started growing again because of higher birth rates, then the labor force might not have stayed low. For example, if half the population was lost, but then in the next decade, higher birth rates started to replace that loss. But in a decade, how much could the birth rate compensate? It takes time for newborns to enter the workforce. So maybe in the following decade, the babies born after the famine wouldn't be old enough to work yet (they'd be children). So maybe this isn't a strong explanation. But the option says "compensated for much of the loss." If the birth rate increased immediately, leading to more people entering the workforce quickly? Wait, but even if they were born right after the famine, they wouldn't be working until maybe 10-15 years later. So in the following decade, the workforce might still be low. So maybe D isn't a strong explanation. But the question is which one LEAST explains. So if D's effect is not immediate, maybe D doesn't contribute much, making it a candidate for the answer. But I need to think more.

E. England legislated artificially low wages. That's a direct intervention. Even if supply and demand would push wages up, if there's a law keeping them low, that explains why wages didn't rise. So E is a good explanation. Not the answer.

So the possible candidates for the LEAST are A and D. Let's re-examine them.

A: Improved medical care reduced mortality rate among able-bodied adults to below prefamine levels. If after the famine, the mortality rate went down, meaning more able-bodied adults survived. But the famine had already caused a massive loss. So in the following decade, if the mortality was lower, the population might have started to recover. But if the mortality was lower than before the famine, then maybe the number of able-bodied adults didn't decrease as much as the total population loss suggests. Wait, but the famine caused deaths and emigration. If after the famine, even though people were still emigrating, those who stayed had lower mortality. But if the eviction policies (as in B) were targeting non-workers, maybe the able-bodied stayed. So A's point is that even after the famine, able-bodied adults weren't dying as much. So perhaps the labor force wasn't as diminished as the total population loss suggests. For example, if half the population was lost, but most of those were non-workers (due to B) and then after the famine, the remaining workers had lower mortality, so the labor force was maintained. Then A would contribute to explaining why wages didn't go up. So A is a possible explanation.

D: Birth rate increased, compensating for population loss. But as I thought earlier, even if the birth rate went up right after the famine, those children wouldn't enter the workforce for 15 years or so. The following decade would be 10 years later. So if the famine was in the 1840s, the next decade is 1850s. Children born in the late 1840s would be 10 years old in the 1850s, still not part of the workforce. So the increased birth rate wouldn't have an immediate effect on the labor supply. Therefore, D's effect wouldn't actually compensate for the population loss in the following decade. Hence, D would not explain the lack of wage increase. Therefore, D is not a good explanation and thus would be the LEAST helpful, making it the correct answer.

Wait, but the answer choices are A through E. The question is which LEAST contributes. So if D's effect isn't felt during the decade in question, then D doesn't help explain. So D would be the least. Alternatively, maybe the answer is A? Wait, but A is about mortality rate among able-bodied adults being reduced. If after the famine, the mortality rate went down, so even though the population was halved, the able-bodied workers' numbers didn't decrease as much. But if eviction policies (B) already retained able-bodied workers, then maybe A is redundant? Or maybe A adds that after the famine, those workers were healthier, so maybe they were more productive, but the question is about the number of workers. If the mortality rate went down, so fewer workers were dying, which would mean the labor force wasn't shrinking further. But the initial loss was already huge. But maybe the key point is that even though half the population was lost, the number of able-bodied workers didn't decrease as much. If the eviction policies made sure that the ones who left were non-workers (B), and improved medical care (A) kept the remaining workers alive, then the labor supply wasn't as low as the total population loss suggests. So both B and A would explain why wages didn't rise. So A is contributing. Then D is not contributing. So the answer would be D.

Therefore, the LEAST is D. Let me check the options again.

The options are:

A. Medical care improved, reducing mortality of able-bodied adults. So more workers stayed alive.

B. Eviction policies got rid of non-workers, keeping workers.

C. Technology meant less labor needed.

D. Birth rate increased, compensating population loss.

E. England kept wages low by law.

So, D's effect on the workforce wouldn't be felt for 15-20 years. So in the following decade, the higher birth rate wouldn't have added to the labor force. So D doesn't explain why wages didn't rise in the decade after. Thus, D is the least helpful. Therefore, the answer is D.

Historically, famines have generally been followed by periods of risin

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Historically, famines have generally been followed by periods of risin

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards