NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 26 Apr 2024, 20:52 It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 20:52
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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

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

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
 1   2   3   
Tags:
Difficulty: Sub 505 Levelx   Businessx   Short Passagex   Social Sciencex                        
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
B
AbdurRakib
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 May 2014
Status:I don't stop when I'm Tired,I stop when I'm done
Posts: 474
Own Kudos [?]: 38841 [109]
Given Kudos: 220
Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Finance, Leadership
Schools: Wharton '20 Yale '20 Tepper '20
GPA: 2.81
WE:Business Development (Real Estate)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 18 Oct 2020, 05:33
33
Kudos
75
Bookmarks
Top Contributor
Question 1
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

5% (low)

based on 6585 sessions

79% (02:30) correct 21% (02:36) wrong
Hide Show timer Statistics
Question 2
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

5% (low)

based on 6372 sessions

79% (01:03) correct 21% (01:30) wrong
Hide Show timer Statistics
Question 3
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

based on 6337 sessions

59% (01:51) correct 41% (02:03) wrong
Hide Show 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)
    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
(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
    had recognized.

Show Spoiler
D

(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
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 Spoiler
D

(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


Show Spoiler
B

(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
ShowHide Answer Question #1
Official Answer
D
ShowHide Answer Question #2
Official Answer
D
ShowHide Answer Question #3
Official Answer
B

Originally posted by AbdurRakib on 26 Jul 2016, 13:37.
Last edited by bM22 on 18 Oct 2020, 05:33, edited 2 times in total.
Formatted
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
D
Kurtosis
Current Student
Joined: 13 Apr 2015
Posts: 1436
Own Kudos [?]: 4548 [27]
Given Kudos: 1228
Location: India
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   27 Jul 2016, 22:26
22
Kudos
5
Bookmarks
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
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6923
Own Kudos [?]: 63674 [22]
Given Kudos: 1774
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   08 Mar 2020, 10:14
15
Kudos
7
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Harsh2111s wrote:
Piyu1 wrote:
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!
General Discussion
User avatar
S
crza
Manager
Manager
Joined: 24 Jan 2017
Posts: 57
Own Kudos [?]: 125 [0]
Given Kudos: 3
Send PM
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   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.

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



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.
User avatar
S
Casilas
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Nov 2016
Posts: 8
Own Kudos [?]: 77 [8]
Given Kudos: 214
Send PM
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   30 Jul 2017, 07:42
8
Kudos
sanjana90 wrote:
Vyshak wrote:
1) The primary purpose of the passage is to






Answer: B



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.
User avatar
L
adkikani
IIM School Moderator
Joined: 04 Sep 2016
Posts: 1261
Own Kudos [?]: 1240 [0]
Given Kudos: 1207
Location: India
WE:Engineering (Other)
Send PM
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   14 Jul 2018, 09:32
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.
User avatar
L
AliciaSierra
Director
Director
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Posts: 756
Own Kudos [?]: 608 [4]
Given Kudos: 1348
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   14 Jul 2018, 17:01
2
Kudos
adkikani wrote:
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.


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.
avatar
pollymonkey
Intern
Intern
Joined: 27 Aug 2018
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [2]
Given Kudos: 34
Send PM
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   25 May 2019, 20:56
2
Kudos
(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!
avatar
B
ngmat12
Intern
Intern
Joined: 05 Sep 2018
Posts: 6
Own Kudos [?]: 11 [3]
Given Kudos: 40
Location: Australia
Schools: Harvard '24 (II) Wharton '24 (II)
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V44
Send PM
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   21 Aug 2019, 08:06
3
Kudos
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.
User avatar
G
Tracy95
Manager
Manager
Joined: 07 Sep 2019
Posts: 97
Own Kudos [?]: 126 [4]
Given Kudos: 174
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Marketing, Strategy
GMAT 1: 670 Q47 V35
WE:Brand Management (Consumer Products)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   09 Nov 2019, 10:08
4
Kudos
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.
avatar
B
Piyu1
Intern
Intern
Joined: 03 Feb 2020
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 8
Send PM
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   18 Feb 2020, 23:34
GMATNinja , Can you help with the 3rd Question. Why A is not correct?
User avatar
P
Harsh2111s
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 May 2019
Posts: 322
Own Kudos [?]: 243 [0]
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
Schools: IIM (D) S.P.Jain Institute (A) XLRI IIML-IPMX '22 NUS '23
GPA: 4
WE:Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   19 Feb 2020, 19:44
Piyu1 wrote:
GMATNinja , Can you help with the 3rd Question. Why A is not correct?


Because option A comparing output with profit.
avatar
B
Gunisha
Intern
Intern
Joined: 06 Dec 2017
Posts: 1
Own Kudos [?]: 0 [0]
Given Kudos: 2
Send PM
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   19 Feb 2020, 20:53
I actually didn't understand this. Can you explain ?

Posted from my mobile device
User avatar
P
Harsh2111s
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 May 2019
Posts: 322
Own Kudos [?]: 243 [0]
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
Schools: IIM (D) S.P.Jain Institute (A) XLRI IIML-IPMX '22 NUS '23
GPA: 4
WE:Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   19 Feb 2020, 23:29
Gunisha wrote:
I actually didn't understand this. Can you explain ?

Posted from my mobile device


A. During an economic depression, European textile manufacturers’ profits rise while their industrial output remains steady.

This option could be correct if option has compared industrial profit and manufacturers profit, but instead it has compared profit with output.
While in option B, terms compared are correct i.e profit with profit.
User avatar
B
nikitamaheshwari
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Jan 2020
Posts: 84
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 131
Send PM
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   04 May 2020, 00:09
GMATNinja wrote:
Harsh2111s wrote:
Piyu1 wrote:
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?
User avatar
B
saby1410
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Feb 2017
Posts: 199
Own Kudos [?]: 18 [0]
Given Kudos: 92
Location: India
Send PM
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   14 May 2020, 00:46
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.
User avatar
P
Harsh2111s
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 May 2019
Posts: 322
Own Kudos [?]: 243 [1]
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
Schools: IIM (D) S.P.Jain Institute (A) XLRI IIML-IPMX '22 NUS '23
GPA: 4
WE:Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   14 May 2020, 01:58
1
Kudos
saby1410 wrote:
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.

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

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 :)
User avatar
B
saby1410
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Feb 2017
Posts: 199
Own Kudos [?]: 18 [0]
Given Kudos: 92
Location: India
Send PM
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 14 May 2020, 07:24
Harsh2111s wrote:
saby1410 wrote:
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.

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

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 :)


VeritasKarishma
Harsh2111s
GMATNinja
So these variables doesn't referring to any variables here it's been referring to variable which are used to affect profit level or output level?

One more doubt how this line is connecting with paragraph i know this line is giving reason why evidence wasn't reliable or consistent,but how this reason is proving that evidence wasn't reliable or consistent.

Also explain the option C of question 3 why it's incorrect

By the way thanks for your responses you give response in a very easy language even with examples.
Thanks a lot karishma

Posted from my mobile device

Originally posted by saby1410 on 14 May 2020, 04:01.
Last edited by saby1410 on 14 May 2020, 07:24, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
B
saby1410
Manager
Manager
Joined: 06 Feb 2017
Posts: 199
Own Kudos [?]: 18 [0]
Given Kudos: 92
Location: India
Send PM
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   14 May 2020, 04:49
GMATNinja wrote:
Harsh2111s wrote:
Piyu1 wrote:
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 we say for option C that we are comparing output and profit levels with rest of the firms in latin america
User avatar
P
Harsh2111s
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 08 May 2019
Posts: 322
Own Kudos [?]: 243 [0]
Given Kudos: 54
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
Schools: IIM (D) S.P.Jain Institute (A) XLRI IIML-IPMX '22 NUS '23
GPA: 4
WE:Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink] New post   14 May 2020, 06:32
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
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: During the 1980s, many economic historians studying Latin America fo [#permalink]
14 May 2020, 06:32
 1   2   3   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6923 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
Sajjad1994
GRE Forum Moderator
13961 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions