Jon Clark’s study of the effect of the modernization of a telephone ex

Disclaimer: I am not a GMAT expert. This is my opinion on the passage.
I initially got questions 1 and 4-6 wrong and wanted to understand my mistakes, so I decided to write this for training purposes.

If you like my explanations give some kudus! ?


First, lets understand the passage:
P1: Jon Clark’s study gives solid contribution to a debate between technological determinism and social constructivism.
P2: Clark: tech have decisive influence on job skills and work organization. Moreover, tech can be a primary determinant of social and managerial organization. This possibility is obscured by sociologics, ex. Braverman’s analysis (tech inf. is subordinate to humans).
P3: why constructivism became mainstream - by misrepresenting technological determinism (the other view). They want deterministics to believe that tech directly influencing skills and work organization. [for me, this part was the hardest to understand. I believe the author tries to tell us that constructivisms want deterministic to believe the extreme]
P4: Clark refutes the extremes of constructivists [yes!]. tech = relationship between social and technical. Not only cold technical, but integrated. empirical – his ex. shows significant alters. Some changes att. to humans negotiations and some related to tech capabilities.
Purpose of passage: show how Clark’s study contributes to a debate between technological determinism and social constructivism, and to show Clark’s opinion.

Question 1: The primary purpose of the passage is to

(A) advocate a more positive attitude toward technological change irrelevant
(B) discuss the implications for employees of the modernization of a telephone exchange not really.
(C) consider a successful challenge to the constructivist view of technological change I don’t like this answer as it states that the "challenge is successful", but after understanding the passage we can say we don’t have a better option here.
(D) challenge the position of advocates of technological determinism not really.
(E) suggest that the social causes of technological change should be studied in real situations not really.

Question 2: Which of the following statements about the modernization of the telephone exchange is supported by information in the passage?
(A) The new technology reduced the role of managers in labor negotiations. not really.
(B) The modernization was implemented without the consent of the employees directly affected by it. not really.
(C) The modernization had an impact that went significantly beyond maintenance routines. the passage clearly states: “Clark shows how a change at the telephone exchange from maintenance-intensive electromechanical switches to semielectronic switching systems altered work tasks, skills, training opportunities, administration, and organization of workers”.
(D) Some of the maintenance workers felt victimized by the new technology. not really.
(E) The modernization gave credence to the view of advocates of social constructivism. not really. We don’t have a reference to this specific event and their opinions on it.

Question 3: Which of the following most accurately describes Clark’s opinion of Braverman’s position?
(A) He respects its wide-ranging popularity. not really.
(B) He disapproves of its misplaced emphasis on the influence of managers. yes! It’s the tech and the negotiations together.
(C) He admires the consideration it gives to the attitudes of the workers affected. not really.
(D) He is concerned about its potential to impede the implementation of new technologies. not really. He doesn’t like the extremes, but he doesn’t say these extreme influence the implementation of new technologies.
(E) He is sympathetic to its concern about the impact of modern technology on workers. not really.

Question 4: The information in the passage suggests that which of the following statements from hypothetical sociological studies of change in industry most clearly exemplifies the social constructivists’ version of technological determinism?
(A) It is the available technology that determines workers’ skills, rather than workers’ skills influencing the application of technology. definitely! It’s that extreme
(B) All progress in industrial technology grows out of a continuing negotiation between technological possibility and human need. not really. That’s the social constructivism view
(C) Some organizational change is caused by people; some is caused by computer chips. not really. That’s Clark’s view
(D) Most major technological advances in industry have been generated through research and development. irrelevant and not stated in the passage
(E) Some industrial technology eliminates jobs, but educated workers can create whole new skills areas by the adaptation of the technology. not stated in the passage

Question 5: The information in the passage suggests that Clark believes that which of the following would be true if social constructivism had not gained widespread acceptance?
(A) Businesses would be more likely to modernize without considering the social consequences of their actions. not really.
(B) There would be greater understanding of the role played by technology in producing social change. we can see that constructivism is only about the role played by humans in negotiating the influence of tech. if no constructivism, we might understand the influence of the tech itself/both factors
(C) Businesses would be less likely to understand the attitudes of employees affected by modernization. not stated in the passage
(D) Modernization would have occurred at a slower rate. not stated in the passage
(E) Technology would have played a greater part in determining the role of business in society. “greater part in determining” is too radical. It might as well happen now, but constructivism just don’t understand it.

Question 6: According to the passage, constructivists employed which of the following to promote their argument?
(A) Empirical studies of business situations involving technological change not stated in the passage
(B) Citation of managers supportive of their position. not stated in the passage
(C) Construction of hypothetical situations that support their view not stated in the passage
(D) Contrasts of their view with a misstatement of an opposing view this is clearly stated in the passage: “The constructivists gain acceptance by misrepresenting technological determinism”
(E) Descriptions of the breadth of impact of technological change not stated in the passage

Question 7: The author of the passage uses the expression “are supposed to” in line 27 primarily in order to
(A) suggest that a contention made by constructivists regarding determinists is inaccurate clearly reflects the passage. They supposed to believe in inaccurate extremes
(B) define the generally accepted position of determinists regarding the implementation of technology irrelevant. This is what determinists supposed to believe
(C) engage in speculation about the motivation of determinists not stated.
(D) lend support to a comment critical of the position of determinists not stated.
(E) contrast the historical position of determinists with their position regarding the exchange modernization not stated.

Question 8: Which of the following statements about Clark’s study of the telephone exchange can be inferred from information in the passage?
(A) Clark’s reason for undertaking the study was to undermine Braverman’s analysis of the function of technology. not stated.
(B) Clark’s study suggests that the implementation of technology should be discussed in the context of conflict between labor and management. not stated.
(C) Clark examined the impact of changes in the technology of switching at the exchange in terms of overall operations and organization. this is clearly stated in the passage
(D) Clark concluded that the implementation of new switching technology was equally beneficial to management and labor. not stated.
(E) Clark’s analysis of the change in switching systems applies only narrowly to the situation at the particular exchange that he studied. not stated.

The constructivists gain acceptance by misrepresenting technological determinism: technological determinists are supposed to believe, for example, that machinery imposes appropriate forms of order on society.

I didn't understand what the above lines are saying . Is it the actual view of technological determinists or is it misinterpreted view of technological determinists (view of the constructivists)

Jon Clark’s study of the effect of the modernization of a telephone exchange on exchange maintenance work and workers is a solid contribution to a debate that encompasses two lively issues in the history and sociology of technology: technological determinism and social constructivism.
 
Clark makes the point that the characteristics of a technology have a decisive influence on job skills and work organization. Put more strongly, technology can be a primary determinant of social and managerial organization. Clark believes this possibility has been obscured by the recent sociological fashion, exemplified by Braverman’s analysis, that emphasizes the way machinery reflects social choices. For Braverman, the shape of a technological system is subordinate to the manager’s desire to wrest control of the labor process from the workers. Technological change is construed as the outcome of negotiations among interested parties who seek to incorporate their own interests into the design and configuration of the machinery. This position represents the new mainstream called social constructivism.
 
The constructivists gain acceptance by misrepresenting technological determinism: technological determinists are supposed to believe, for example, that machinery imposes appropriate forms of order on society. The alternative to constructivism, in other words, is to view technology as existing outside society, capable of directly influencing skills and work organization.
 
Clark refutes the extremes of the constructivists by both theoretical and empirical arguments. Theoretically he defines “technology” in terms of relationships between social and technical variables. Attempts to reduce the meaning of technology to cold, hard metal are bound to fail, for machinery is just scrap unless it is organized functionally and supported by appropriate systems of operation and maintenance. At the empirical level Clark shows how a change at the telephone exchange from maintenance-intensive electromechanical switches to semielectronic switching systems altered work tasks, skills, training opportunities, administration, and organization of workers. Some changes Clark attributes to the particular way management and labor unions negotiated the introduction of the technology, whereas others are seen as arising from the capabilities and nature of the technology itself. Thus Clark helps answer the question: “When is social choice decisive and when are the concrete characteristics of technology more important?”

Can anyone please explain me the answer of Question 5? I feel even E plays as a good contender as the right option. Please can anyone explain? Thank you.

Jon Clark’s study of the effect of the modernization of a telephone exchange on exchange maintenance work and workers is a solid contribution to a debate that encompasses two lively issues in the history and sociology of technology: technological determinism and social constructivism.
 
Clark makes the point that the characteristics of a technology have a decisive influence on job skills and work organization. Put more strongly, technology can be a primary determinant of social and managerial organization. Clark believes this possibility has been obscured by the recent sociological fashion, exemplified by Braverman’s analysis, that emphasizes the way machinery reflects social choices. For Braverman, the shape of a technological system is subordinate to the manager’s desire to wrest control of the labor process from the workers. Technological change is construed as the outcome of negotiations among interested parties who seek to incorporate their own interests into the design and configuration of the machinery. This position represents the new mainstream called social constructivism.
 
The constructivists gain acceptance by misrepresenting technological determinism: technological determinists are supposed to believe, for example, that machinery imposes appropriate forms of order on society. The alternative to constructivism, in other words, is to view technology as existing outside society, capable of directly influencing skills and work organization.
 
Clark refutes the extremes of the constructivists by both theoretical and empirical arguments. Theoretically he defines “technology” in terms of relationships between social and technical variables. Attempts to reduce the meaning of technology to cold, hard metal are bound to fail, for machinery is just scrap unless it is organized functionally and supported by appropriate systems of operation and maintenance. At the empirical level Clark shows how a change at the telephone exchange from maintenance-intensive electromechanical switches to semielectronic switching systems altered work tasks, skills, training opportunities, administration, and organization of workers. Some changes Clark attributes to the particular way management and labor unions negotiated the introduction of the technology, whereas others are seen as arising from the capabilities and nature of the technology itself. Thus Clark helps answer the question: “When is social choice decisive and when are the concrete characteristics of technology more important?”

4. The information in the passage suggests that which of the following statements from hypothetical sociological studies of change in industry most clearly exemplifies the social constructivists’ version of technological determinism?

(A) It is the available technology that determines workers’ skills, rather than workers’ skills influencing the application of technology. -> correct

6. According to the passage, constructivists employed which of the following to promote their argument?

(D) Contrasts of their view with a misstatement of an opposing view ->correct

7. The author of the passage uses the expression “are supposed to” in line 27 primarily in order to

(A) suggest that a contention made by constructivists regarding determinists is inaccurate ->correct

My biggest doubt is: does the 3rd paragraph contain the misinterpretation only?

The constructivists gain acceptance by misrepresenting technological determinism: technological determinists are supposed to believe, for example, that machinery imposes appropriate forms of order on society. The alternative to constructivism, in other words, is to view technology as existing outside society, capable of directly influencing skills and work organization.

My understanding of the use of colon is that the colon is usually followed by an explanation of some point made prior to the colon. Hence, the two statements after the colon should both explain how the constructivists misrepresent the technology determinism.

But, I feel that the first statement, colored in blue, is not part of the misinterpretation for three reasons:

a. "appropriate" is a positive word.
->If the first statement is part of the misinterpretation, it reads "Constructivists think that the determinists believe that machinery imposes appropriate forms of order on society." It is strange that constructivists use a word so approving in their description of their competitors' belief, especially given that the author says the constructivists gain acceptance by distorting their rivals' claims.

b. the use of "alternative"
->The use of "alternative" increases the difficulty. The word "alternative," used as a noun, primarily means "another choice," as in "an alternative to coffee," but here "the alternative to constructivism" does not mean "another theory different from constructivism," does it? It seems to me that the phrasing means "another way to interpret the technology determinism for the constructivists."

c. The first statement is against the second statement.
These constructivists say on one hand that the determinists think that the machines does something appropriate on the society, but mention on the other hand that the determinists also think that the technology exist outside society?

Two more questions are related to the third paragraph, and I answered them correctly. But I still hope to confirm the meaning of the third paragraph.

In fact, I am not sure from the 3rd paragraph whether the constructivists contrasts two views, but other options are less realistic.


I think that the "contention" in option (A) could refer to the second statement (technology exist outside the society.)

Experts how do you think about the third paragraph?
If you do think that the third paragraph contains only the misinterpretation, could you elaborate why? And does the phrasing "are supposed to" and "alternative" play a role in the meaning?

Firstly, misinterpreting and misrepresenting are two very different things, and I wonder whether your difficulty with this passage stems, at least in part, from interpreting (pun intended) the word 'misrepresenting' as 'misinterpreting'.
When we say that someone misinterpreted something, the implication is that it was an honest mistake.
When we say that someone misrepresented something, the implication is that this person has violated our trust, and deliberately perpetrated a scam of some kind.
It's like the difference between involuntary manslaughter and first degree murder.

*
Yes, it is strange. That said, the verb "imposes" is a negative word, so maybe that's the emphasis? I don't know enough about the subject matter to be sure, but the nice thing about RC is that I should nevertheless be able to answer all the questions as long as I get the general point. More importantly, note the words "in other words" in the sentence after the one with the colon. These words imply two important things: 1. The two sentences have the same role. 2. the first sentence requires further explanation (in the author's opinion).

*
There's an important difference between "an alternative" and "the alternative". Using the article "the" in front of "alternative" implies a binary choice.

*
Actually, the idea here (I believe) is that in order to be able to impose forms of order on society, you have to exist outside of society. Perhaps an appropriate analogy here is that the zookeeper can impose forms of order on the animals in the zoo. He or she is able to do so because he or she exists outside of the zoo; an animal from within the zoo would not be able to impose forms of order on the animals in the zoo.

Here, the author tells us that the constructivists misrepresent the views of technological determinists. So, this sentence doesn't give us the actual viewpoint of determinists -- it gives us the distorted way in which constructivists describe the views of their opponents.

Constructivists say that determinists hold the extreme belief that "machinery imposes appropriate forms of order on society." In the last paragraph, we see Clark's response to this claim -- he doesn't actually hold that view at all.

I hope that helps!

Does the "in other words" part simply rephrase "machinery imposes appropriate forms on order of society"?

My second question pertains to question 587 ("The information in the passage suggests that Clark believes that which of the following would be true if social constructivism had not gained widespread acceptance?"). I am confused as to how we can draw "social change" from lines 9-11. From my understanding, these lines just say tech can determine social and managerial organization. Drawing "social change" from that seems like a far stretch?

Clark makes the point that the characteristics of a technology have a decisive influence on job skills and work organization. Put more strongly, technology can be a primary determinant of social and managerial organization. Clark believes this possibility has been obscured by the recent sociological fashion

Not exactly. I would say that the role of "in other words" here is to elevate the level of analysis to a bigger picture perspective, so it's more of an inference than a rephrase. Analogy:
James gets custody of the children by misrepresenting his wife's financial situation: she is supposed to be, for example, losing her home. The alternative to giving James custody, in other words, is to let the children live on the street.
Letting the children live on the street isn't exactly a rephrase of the mother losing her home.

It seems to me, woohoo921, that the relevant text for this question is the following:

I boldfaced the word "obscured" because that seems to be the crux of what Clark believes is the impact of social constructivism gaining widespread acceptance. So, Clark believes "this possibility" has been obscured. What possibility, exactly?
the characteristics of a technology have a decisive influence on job skills and work organization. Put more strongly, technology can be a primary determinant of social and managerial organization
So, we're looking for an answer choice that shows what might have happened had this possibility not been obscured.
Now, woohoo921, you're asking how we can go from tech can determine social and managerial organization to technology producing social change?
Well, yes, if something can determine social organization... then it can produce social change. If you can determine how something is organized, then you can change the way that it is organized.

I have one more follow-up question, why does the author put "technological determinists are supposed to believe" after the colon? I realize that this is discussed above, but is this the constructivists saying, "technological determinists are supposed to believe”

Can you all please give some tips on how to tackle with such long and "difficult to understand" passages?