V10-12

Official Solution:


Over the past 2 years, the population of the Rugian Republic, which is directly correlated to its labour force, has declined from 117.6 million to 115.4 million, and the country’s GDP has remained steady. A country’s GDP is determined by two factors: the size of its labor force and the productivity of its labor force. Therefore, if the Rugian population trend continues, the country’s GDP will soon decline as well.

Which of the following most strengthens the argument?


A. There have been no technological developments that would increase the productivity of the labor force
B. Automation has allowed some manufacturing companies to increase their output
C. The country economy’s is shifting from goods to services, and services create a higher level of output per worker
D. The level of immigration to the Rugian Republic has increased, and this trend is expected to continue
E. There has been an increase in the number of young people entering the workforce, and older workers are delaying their retirement longer


(A) Correct. The passage states that GDP is determine by size of the labor force and productivity of the labor force. The passage states that the size of the labor force has decreased. If productivity remained the same because there were no technological advances, then GDP will decline.

(B) This answer choice suggests that productivity has increased; this could offset the decrease in the labor force.

(C) This answer choice suggests that productivity will increase; this could offset the decrease in the labor force.

(D) If level of legal immigration to the Rugian Republic keeps increasing, then the declining population trend should reverse, and GDP should go up as the labor force increases.

(E) This answer choices suggests that the size of the labor force will increase, which may offset the population decline.


Answer: A
_________________

bb, the passage gives information that the population declined, but in the explanation of the correct answer choice A and other choices, you say that "the size of the labor force has decreased.", which requires additional assumption, that "population decline = labour force decline".

Please refer to the slight change in wording in the first sentence of the passage.

Great question, thank you!

I'm unsure if I get it right: "There have been no technological developments that would increase the productivity of the labor force" doesn't this damage the whole argument? because if there was no increase in productivity, how then would GDP remained the same?

thank you

Yes your understanding is correct - consider this way:

GDP ∝ Population x Productivity

If GDP is to remain same while population goes down, the productivity must go up.

Hi, Sayantanc2k

I am not sure I am understanding the explanation correctly. Could you please point to my misunderstanding?

If GDP = Labor*Productivity then, if Labor force has declined, the only possible explanation for GDP not declining is Productivity increasing. Alternatively, if there has been no productivity increase due to technological advances, then the GDP should be declining and resultantly since it "Has remained steady", this point WEAKENS the argument.

I think this is a high-quality question and I don't agree with the explanation. If there "Have been" no technological developments that would increase the productivity of the labor force then how will you justify the discrepancy in the question statement that the population decreased but GDP has remained steady.

Should that have been be something like "will be no more"
or "no more technological developments are expected"?