According to many analysts, labor-management relations in the United

Question

According to many analysts, labor-management relations in the United States are undergoing a fundamental change: traditional adversarialism is giving way to a new cooperative relationship between the two sides and even to concessions from labor. These analysts say the twin shocks of nonunion competition in this country and low-cost, high-quality imports from abroad are forcing unions to look more favorably at a variety of management demands: the need for wage restraint and reduced benefits as well as the abolition of “rigid” work rules, seniority rights, and job classifications.

Sophisticated proponents of these new developments cast their observations in a prolabor light. In return for their concessions, they point out, some unions have bargained for profit sharing, retraining rights, and job¬-security guarantees. Unions can also trade concessions for more say on the shop floor, where techniques such as quality circles and quality-of-work-life programs promise workers greater control over their own jobs. Unions may even win a voice in investment and pricing strategy, plant location, and other major corporate policy decisions previously reserved to management.

Opponents of these concessions from labor argue that such concessions do not save jobs, but either prolong the agony of dying plants or finance the plant relocations that employers had intended anyway. Companies make investment decisions to fit their strategic plans and their profit objectives, opponents point out, and labor costs are usually just a small factor in the equation. Moreover, unrestrained by either loyalty to their work force or political or legislative constraints on their mobility, the companies eventually cut and run, concessions or no concessions.

Wage-related concessions have come under particular attack, since opponents believe that high union wages underlay much of the success of United States industry in this century. They point out that a long-standing principle, shared by both management and labor, has been that workers should earn wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make. Moreover, high wages have given workers the buying power to propel the economy forward. If proposals for pay cuts, two-tier wage systems, and subminimum wages for young workers continue to gain credence, opponents believe the U.S. social structure will move toward that of a less-developed nation: a small group of wealthy investors, a sizable but still minority bloc of elite professionals and highly skilled employees, and a huge mass of marginal workers and unskilled laborers. Further, they argue that if unions willingly engage in concession bargaining on the false grounds that labor costs are the source of a company's problems, unions will find themselves competing with Third World pay levels—a competition they cannot win.   1 
 RC32661-01.01 
 1. It can be inferred from the passage that opponents of labor concessions would most likely describe many plant-relocation decisions made by United States companies as

A. capricious
B. self-serving
C. naive
D. impulsive
E. illogical

2 
 RC32661-02.01

2. It can be inferred from the passage that, until recently, which of the following has been true of United States industry in the twentieth century?

A. Unions have consistently participated in major corporate policy decisions.
B. Maintaining adequate quality control in manufacturing processes has been a principal problem.
C. Union workers have been paid relatively high wages.
D. Two-tier wage systems have been the norm.
E. Goods produced have been priced beyond the means of most workers.

3 
 RC32661-03.01 
 3. The passage provides information to answer which of the following questions?

A. What has caused unions to consider wage restraints and reduced benefits?
B. Why do analysts study United States labor-management relations?
C. How do job-security guarantees operate?
D. Are investment and pricing strategies effective in combating imports?
E. Do quality circles improve product performance and value?

4 
 RC32661-04.01 
 4. The passage is primarily concerned with the

A. reasons for adversarialism between labor and management
B. importance of cooperative labor-management relations
C. consequences of labor concessions to management
D. effects of foreign competition on the United States economy
E. effects of nonunion competition on union bargaining strategies

5 
 RC32661-05.01 
 5. The sentence “If proposals for pay cuts ... unskilled laborers” serves primarily to

A. disprove a theory
B. clarify an ambiguity
C. reconcile opposing views
D. present a hypothesis
E. contradict accepted data

6 
 RC32661-06.01 
 6. It can be inferred from the passage that opponents of labor concessions believe that if concession bargaining continues, then

A. plants will close instead of relocating
B. young workers will need continued job retraining
C. professional workers will outnumber marginal workers
D. wealthy investors will invest in Third World countries instead of the United States
E. the social structure of the United States will be negatively affected

7 
 RC32661-07.01 
 7. According to the author, “Sophisticated proponents” of concessions do which of the following?

A. Support the traditional adversarialism characteristic of labor-management relations.
B. Emphasize the benefits unions can gain by granting concessions.
C. Focus on thorough analyses of current economic conditions.
D. Present management's reasons for demanding concessions.
E. Explain domestic economic developments in terms of worldwide trends.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Question 4 
 
The first paragraph tells us that "the twin shocks of nonunion competition in this country and low-cost, high-quality imports from abroad are forcing unions to look more favorably at a variety of management demands". In other words, those "twin shocks" are forcing unions to be more open to making labor concessions to management.

The second paragraph describes some of the  positive  consequences of labor concessions to management (i.e. profit sharing, retraining rights, job-security guarantees, and more say on the shop floor). Then, the third and fourth paragraphs describe some of the  negative  consequences of labor concessions to management (i.e. financing plant relocations, moving the U.S. social structure toward that of a less-developed nation, and causing unions to engage in a futile competition with Third World pay levels).

So the first paragraph tells us WHY unions are more willing to make labor concessions management, and the rest of the passage describes the potential positive and negative effects of making such concessions. Thus, we can say that the passage is primarily concerned with the consequences of labor concessions to management (C).

Hi Sonal, regarding your first question, I think you may have misinterpreted choice (C): "to management" describes the "labor concessions" themselves, not the consequences. The unions and laborers are the ones making labor concessions to management. The passage is concerned with the consequences of such concessions.

Question 5 
 
This sentence does not  disprove  that there is a "new cooperative relationship between the two sides and even to concessions from labor". The author is concerned with the  consequences  of these new developments and does not dispute that the relationship between the two sides has become more cooperative.

Instead, the sentence presents a hypothesis: if proposals for   continue to gain credence, then, according to opponents, the U.S. social structure will move toward that of a less-developed nation. This is what the opponents BELIEVE will happen. Because it has not happened yet, it is only a hypothesis at this point. So (D) is the best answer.

I hope that helps!

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 1 
 
Plant relocations are first referenced in the first sentence of the third paragraph. Then the second sentence of that paragraph states that "companies make investment decisions to fit their strategic plans and their profit objectives".

Given the context, we can infer that a plant relocation decision would qualify as an investment decision. So, if companies make plant relocation decisions to "fit their strategic plans and their profit objectives", such decisions would certainly be made to serve the interests of those companies. In other words, we could describe such decisions as "self-serving".

More importantly, there is nothing in the passage suggesting that such decisions are (A) capricious (fickle/unpredictable), (C) naive (lacking informed judgment), (D) impulsive, or (E) illogical. By process of elimination, (B) is the best choice for question #1.

Question 2

Paragraph two tells us that participation in major corporate decisions is something that unions MAY win with concession bargaining. This implies that (A) is something that has NOT been true of US industry in the past. Eliminate (A).

There is nothing in the passage to support this choice. Quality  circles  are mentioned as an example of shop floor techniques, but even those are only mentioned in a discussion of  possible  benefits from concession bargaining. Eliminate (B).

Paragraph four starts with, "Wage-related concessions have come under particular attack, since opponents believe that  high union wages  underlay much of the success of United States industry in this century." From this, we can infer that union workers have had relatively high wages in the past. Hang on to (C).

In paragraph four, we have, "If... two-tier wage systems...  continue to gain credence ..." Thus, two-tier wage systems represent something that is  currently  gaining credence, not something that has been the norm in the past. Eliminate (D).

Referencing paragraph four again, we are told that, "  point out that a long-standing principle, shared by both management and labor, has been that workers should earn wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make." Since this has been a long-standing principle, we can infer that workers have been earning wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make. This contradicts choice (E), so eliminate this one.

(C) is the best answer for question #2.

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 4 
 
Let's start by identifying the author's purpose in each paragraph:
   P1: To introduce an idea about  labor-management relations . More specifically, the idea that adversarialism between management and labor is being replaced by a new situation where labor makes concessions to management.   P2: To explain why proponents support labor concessions (i.e. because they lead to  positive consequences  like profit sharing and job-security guarantees).   P3: To explain why opponents don't like like labor concessions (i.e. because they do not save jobs, etc.).   P4: To give further reasons why opponents don't like labor concessions (i.e. because high union wages underlie the success of US industry).

Let's now consider the question and answer choice (C):

The passage starts by introducing the idea that labor is currently making more concessions to management. It then discusses why proponents like these concessions (because they have  positive consequences ), and why opponents don't like them (because they have  negative consequences ).

So it makes sense to say the author's primary concern is discussing the "consequences of labor concessions to management."

Hold on to (C).

Let's now consider (E):

The first paragraph mentions that non-union competition is one reason that unions are making more concessions to management. But that isn't the  primary  concern of the passage as a whole. It's just an explanation for the main idea of the first paragraph.

Furthermore, the passage doesn't really discuss "union bargaining  strategies ." That is, we don't know what methods the unions use when negotiating with management. We just know that they are making more concessions these days.

For both those reasons, we can eliminate (E).

That leaves us with (C), which is correct.

I hope that helps!

Priyanka1293 · Answer

Can you please explain Question 4?

How is the primary focus of the passage to explain consequences of labor concessions to ? Isn't it some what the opposite ?

Skywalker18 · Answer

All correct in 12mins 30 seconds

Para 1- new cooperative relationship, concessions from labor
Para 2- proponent's view
Para 3- opponent's view
Para 4- high union wages underlay much of the success of United States, If proposals for pay cuts, two-tier wage systems, and subminimum wages for young workers continue to gain credence, opponents believe the U.S. social structure will move toward that of a less-developed nation

1. It can be inferred from the passage that opponents of labor concessions would most likely describe many plant-relocation decisions made by United States companies as

A. capricious - althought i want not sure about the meaning of this option, I could figure out the answer
B. self-serving - Correct
C. naive - incorrect
D. impulsive - incorrect- it is anything but impulsive
E. illogical- incorrect

Opponents of these concessions from labor argue that such concessions do not save jobs, but either prolong the agony of dying plants or finance the plant relocations that employers had intended anyway.
Moreover, unrestrained by either loyalty to their work force or political or legislative constraints on their mobility, the companies eventually cut and run, concessions or no concessions.

2. It can be inferred from the passage that, until recently, which of the following has been true of United States industry in the twentieth century?
 C. Union workers have been paid relatively high wages. - Correct

They point out that a long-standing principle, shared by both management and labor, has been that workers should earn wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make. Moreover, high wages have given workers the buying power to propel the economy forward.

3. The passage provides information to answer which of the following questions?
A. What has caused unions to consider wage restraints and reduced benefits?

These analysts say the twin shocks of nonunion competition in this country and low-cost, high-quality imports from abroad are forcing unions to look more favorably at a variety of management demands

4. The passage is primarily concerned with the
A. reasons for adversarialism between labor and management- incorrect, the reasons are not stated
B. importance of cooperative labor-management relations - incorrect
C. consequences of labor concessions to management - Correct
D. effects of foreign competition on the United States economy- incorrect, foreign competition is just one of the factors mentioned in para 1
E. effects of nonunion competition on union bargaining strategies- incorrect, nonunion competition is just one of the factors mentioned in para 1

5. The sentence “If proposals for pay cuts … unskilled laborers” serves primarily to
D. present a hypothesis
If proposals for pay cuts, two-tier wage systems, and subminimum wages for young workers continue to gain credence, opponents believe the U.S. social structure will move toward that of a less-developed nation: a small group of wealthy investors, a sizable but still minority bloc of elite professionals and highly skilled employees, and a huge mass of marginal workers and unskilled laborers.

6. It can be inferred from the passage that opponents of labor concessions believe that if concession bargaining continues, then
E. the social structure of the United States will be negatively affected - Correct, same as question 5

7. According to the author, “Sophisticated proponents” of concessions do which of the following?
B. Emphasize the benefits unions can gain by granting concessions.

In return for their concessions, they point out, some unions have bargained for profit sharing, retraining rights, and job¬-security guarantees. 
Unions can also trade concessions for more say on the shop floor, where techniques such as quality circles and quality-of-work-life programs promise workers greater control over their own jobs. Unions may even win a voice in investment and pricing strategy, plant location, and other major corporate policy decisions previously reserved to management.

sonalchhajed2019 · Answer

4 . The passage is primarily concerned with the

A. reasons for adversarialism between labor and management

B. importance of cooperative labor-management relations

C. consequences of labor concessions to management

D. effects of foreign competition on the United States economy

E. effects of nonunion competition on union bargaining strategies

Hi,

I need to understand why is the answer to question 4 C. I did not mark the answer C since it states that passage is primarily concerned with "consequences of labor concessions to management" whereas the also provides information about the consequences of labor concessions on the unions and laborers. Since I thought this option only gives a particially correct answer I did not mark this.

And I got answer A that too through the process of elimination and I am not quite sure about the answer. Please help me understand where am I going wrong. And how to correct the thought process so I do not repeat the same mistake again.

5. The sentence “If proposals for pay cuts … unskilled laborers” serves primarily to

A. disprove a theory

B. clarify an ambiguity

C. reconcile opposing views

D. present a hypothesis

E. contradict accepted data

For Question 5 I was confused between 2 answer choices A and D. I chose A. The reason for choosing A was I thought that the passage is presenting a certain view on cooperative labor-management relations
. And The sentence “If proposals for pay cuts … unskilled laborers” is disproving that theory but stating the opposite of intended effect. @GMATNinjaPlease let me know where did I go wrong.

Thank You 
Sonal

Businessconquerer · Answer

I like the way you explain things, I'm confused in question 4
Option C states the primary purpose like this, consequences of concessions on management, however I eliminated it based on some really stupid reason, reason being the consequences on management are only discussed in para 1 other paras are just talking about the profit/loss of labour if they agree to the concessions.
Could you kindly see where I went wrong and explain in your way how I should've done it?

trulyrohan · Answer

For question 6, why is D not the correct answer?

The last line of the passage clearly says that if the concession bargaining continues, then they will have to compete with third world wages- a competition they cannot win. This means that wealthy investors will start invest in third world countries instead of the states

Is there any flaw in my reasoning? Or is E just a better choice? If yes, why?

GMATNinja · Answer

I'm glad to hear that this helped you understand questions 1 and 2!

It seems like you're trying to map the  content  of each paragraph to overall purpose of the passage (e.g., P1 says X, P2 says Y, P3 says Z... so the correct answer choice must cover X, Y, and Z).

This is a bad strategy because the the  primary purpose  or  primary concern  of a passage is NOT simply the sum of WHAT was said. Rather, the primary concern of of a passage is the overarching reason WHY the author wrote the passage.

It is still useful to clearly understand the purpose of each individual paragraph, but ultimately we're looking for that big-picture reason that is driving the author to write this passage in the first place.

Put another way: If the passage is structured so that one paragraph sets up a question, then two paragraphs explore potential answers or challenges to that question, then the passage is still primarily concerned with the question.

I hope this clarifies the approach, and enables you to understand Q4 in a new light.

For more, you could  check out this article for some broad RC skills and tips , or you might enjoy  this video .

I hope this helps a bit!

mSKR · Answer

hi  GMATNinja   AndrewN  sir

What are your suggestions on solving question in which we need to find which option is true and each option is spread across paragraph. Example question no. 2 here. It took me over 3 minutes and still end up in choosing E.

AndrewN · Answer

Hello,  imSKR . I will refrain from discussing question two above, since  GMATNinja  and others have already done so satisfactorily. But in general, you want to make sure you spend enough time reading the passage to grasp how the paragraphs play off of each other so that you know where to look for information. In this case, if the question asks about U.S. industry in the 20th century, then I will look to find information on U.S. industry in the 20th century— until recently , that is. You should not have to labor over each answer choice. Some of them are easier to pick off than others. Moreover, you do not need to make a definitive call as soon as you lay eyes on an answer choice. It is okay to think in terms of likeliness, more likely or less likely, the first time you go through the answers, and to come back to those you deem more likely (or at least reasonable) in a second pass.

- Andrew

Pankaj0901 · Answer

AndrewN  - Request you to please help me with this. My understanding of the 4th paragraph of the passage is as follows:

Quoting below a part of the P4 where I am getting confused:
 "If proposals for pay cuts, two-tier wage systems, and subminimum wages for young workers continue to gain credence, opponents believe the U.S. social structure will move toward that of a less-developed nation: a small group of wealthy investors, a sizable but still minority bloc of elite professionals and highly skilled employees, and a huge mass of marginal workers and unskilled laborers."
  Here opponents of the labor concession are highlighting the negative effects in case the new labor concession doesn't get implemented. It conveys as if they are supporting the new labor concession (but they are opponents). What am I missing in my interpretation? .

mSKR · Answer

Previous sentences have already set tones of opponents: Wage-related concessions have come under particular attack , since opponents believe that high union wages underlay much of the success of United States industry in this century. Addition information : They point out that a long-standing principle, shared by both management and labor, has been that workers should earn wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make. Moreover, high wages have given workers the buying power to propel the economy forward. I just add my few cents, hope it maybe of some help:) I understood the below sentence as : If proposals for pay cuts, two-tier wage systems, and subminimum wages for young workers continue to gain credence, opponents believe the U.S. social structure will move toward that of a less-developed nation //sentence meaning: If this law concession is passed then US would move towards structure of a less developed nation. It means opponents don't favor this law. after COLON : a small group of wealthy investors, a sizable but still minority bloc of elite professionals and highly skilled employees, and a huge mass of marginal workers and unskilled laborers. Further, they argue that if unions willingly engage in concession bargaining on the false grounds that labor costs are the source of a company's problems, unions will find themselves competing with Third World pay levels—a competition they cannot win.

Tanchat · Answer

GMATNinja

I have questions on Choice D and E in Q2
1) In (D), two-tier wage systems represent something that is  currently  gaining credence -> Does this not mean "Norm" ?
2) In (E), has been that workers "" should "" earn wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make. "Should" is a word used to "suggest" / "recommend". So, can we imply that the wage is lower than Goods price ?

GMATNinja · Answer

Question 2 
 
1) Question 2 asks us to infer which answer choice   has been   true of United States industry in the twentieth century,   until recently  .

In other words, which answer choice was true BEFORE all of these recent changes?

If two-tier wage systems are  currently  gaining credence, then they were  not  the norm earlier in the twentieth century. Are they the norm now? Even that's on shaky ground -- "gaining credence" just means that they are more common than before, and doesn't necessarily imply that they are the now most common wage system.

More importantly, these systems certainly weren't the norm earlier, which is why we can confidently eliminate (D).

2) The word "should" doesn't imply that this recommendation hasn't been met, and that wages have been lower than the price of goods. Think of this example: if you and I both have a long-standing agreement that we  should  go out for coffee on Saturday mornings, does that mean that we aren't, in fact, going out for coffee each week? Not at all! In fact, if we had such an agreement, it would make more sense that we  do  meet up.

Similarly, in the passage we learn that both agree by "long-standing principle" that "workers should earn wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make." This implies that wages ARE are generally high enough to buy goods -- both parties involved agree, so what's standing in the way of making that happen?

This implication is strengthened by the comparison with more recent wages, which are  going down . Everyone  used  to agree that wages should be high enough for workers to buy their goods, but now unions are making concessions and allowing wages to be lowered.

(E) is the opposite of what the passage implies.

I hope that helps!

woohoo921 · Answer

For question "RC32661-07.01: According to the author, ???Sophisticated proponents??? of concessions do which of the following?"

For B and C, the Official Answer in the Verbal Guide says that "Sophisticated proponents may sometimes do this, but the passage emphasizes their focus on opportunities for labor gains". I realize that you shouldn't totally rely on the Official Answer, but where in the passage does it even say Sophisticated Investors sometimes do this? To confirm, this is not mentioned, and the Official Answer is more so saying that Sophisticated Investors MAY do this.

Thank you

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

Hi woohoo921. One important background principle to make sure you understand accurately here:  OG answer explanations for RC and CR are usually well done.

OG answer explanation materials of dubious quality are limited almost entirely to SC.
Even if theoretically there were an equal mandate issued to the OA writers in all three areas, this result would still be very unsurprising.
 
Simply put, it's just much, much harder to write answer keys—or any other guidance—in SC than in the other verbal subcategories.

The fundamental solution process of a RC or CR problem will consist entirely of consciously processed rational reasoning, whereas in SC—even at the consistently near-ground level of the principles that SC actually tests—the more skilled or experienced someone is, the LESS active rational processing she/he will use in the solution process, and the LESS explicitly aware she/he will be of the (increasingly subconscious) actual processing workflow that occurs in the mind en route to a solution.

The result is that SC OA keys involve a substantial retrospective component. I.e., the original path to the solution has a major component of intuition—which is never conscious or purposely manipulated (this is the entire point of defining 'intuition' as segregated from rational thought processes)—but of course it's not possible to acknowledge intuition in an answer key.
Therefore, writers of answer keys must actually go back, effectively erase those parts of the original cognitive path from history, and  https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/retcon-history-and-meaning]retcon  the narrative of solving the problem into something that is 100% rational and explainable in words that themselves are not insanely complicated or otherwise hard to understand.

That is not easy to begin with. Furthermore, if we're totally honest about the actual thought processes involved here, we'll realize that the MOST skilled SC problem solvers will use the greatest amount of intuition, and will depend the LEAST—in numerous cases not at all—on any step-by-step process that could be consciously narrated.

If you don't see why any of this is so, then, consider your experiences of hearing people speaking YOUR first language. Specifically, think for a sec about hearing your fellow native speakers speak your mother tongue, vs. hearing it from the mouths of adult learners who speak some other language natively.
You can almost certainly identify, with 100.000% accuracy, which speakers are first-language users like you and which others are foreign speakers who started learning your language later. Right?
If so, to which extent are you actually using a step-by-step set of articulable rules to make those decisions? Probably NEVER EVER EVER. Unless you have an extensive and very specific background in either academic linguistics (in which your academic focus might be breaking down pronunciation into individual phonemes) or acting/theater (in some area adjacent to coaching foreign actors to speak in a convincingly native-sounding accent—at least for the lines they have to say in the production!), not only would you NOT run through a checklist to determine "Native speaker y/n?", but you likely would not have the first clue how to make such a checklist even if you had a significant incentive to do so.

The analogy here results in an exaggerated understanding, because—unlike your auditory discrimination between native and non-native speakers of your native tongue, nobody's SC solution processes are actually 100 percent subconscious (because  FORMAL WRITTEN  English—a language with a worldwide total of 0 native speakers—WILL call to some extent on rational processing, even from the world's most skilled and experienced wordsmiths.

Absolutely NONE of the above is true for CR or RC solutions. Although rational argumentation can end up co-opting your intuition once you're well accustomed to using it, it has always been a rational, aware, step-by-step process from day one. Since CR and RC problems have to pass a STRICT evidentiary standard (= "the words have to be there in the passage!"), the written OA format is not at odds with the base nature of the thought processes that undergirds it, as it is in SC.

Very short summary of the above:
 You can normally trust OG answer explanations in CR and RC.   
The admittedly dodgy quality of OG OA explanations is pretty much for SC only—and, for the entire slate of reasons I've attempted to lay out above, it isn't even the fault of the key writers (or of anyone else who attempts to create SC keys with poor results).
I can't give a corresponding judgment either way about CR/RC explanations in non-official sources (mostly because I haven't seen them in the first place).

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

In the case of this problem (which is #7 in the current thread topic)...

...the question and its support in the text are, as usual, perfectly rigorous and consummately well done. 
There is 1 correct answer; there are 4 incorrect answers. This binary is, as always, a binary: there is absolutely nothing 'less bad' or 'sorta correct' about any of the four incorrect answers.

As always,  if you perceive any incorrect answer as a 'trap' answer, the nature of the 'trap' will lie in whatever FALLS SHORT in YOUR understanding and/or approach —NOT in any measure of deception or other less-than-upstanding craftsmanship in the creation of the question itself.

The phrase "Sophisticated proponents" is a great gift here, because it appears exactly once in the entire passage—at the start of ¶2—so that instance is your north star here. Elucidating what's going on there WILL, with absolute certainty, lead to a correct solution to this problem.

So what are " ophisticated proponents" saying? 
—> Someone's "observations" are being  reframed as pro-labor .

What observations?
—> These appear directly above, at the end of the prior paragraph. They are  demands from management , to which labor unions would have to AGREE, i.e.,  GIVE / SACRIFICE some sort of proverbial ground in a compromise .

Combining these gives the requisite understanding in one go: The "sophisticated proponents" are  saying that  letting management 'win' on some pieces of the negotiation is GOOD for the workers  . (Sounds less than trustworthy, LOL... If this were true, why would there even be labor unions?)

This is exactly what choice B says, so choice B is your winner.

RonTargetTestPrep · Answer

Choice B is justified above in detail.

Choice C is unsupported, because there are no "thorough analyses of current economic conditions" anywhere in the parts of the text that specify exactly what the sophisticated smooth guys say.
More generally, "thorough analyses of current economic conditions" is way, way, WAY too broad in scope to be the correct answer, either here or almost certainly on any OTHER passage.

BIG TAKEAWAY:
 Statements WRITTEN IN VERY GENERAL LANGUAGE  will mean 
EITHER
"the  entire range/scope  of this whole general set of ideas"  (which will pretty much NEVER be supportable in a GMAT-length piece)
 OR
" ONE idea from  anywhere in this entire range of ideas"  (which could still be wrong, of course, but will be  supportable  by a small chunk of evidence).

To distinguish between these two possibilities—which are at opposite poles, with nothing in the wide space between them—just read the words and, as always, think carefully about what is LITERALLY meant be THE WORDS THAT ARE THERE. Do not insinuate or assume anything additional.

E.g.,

"...about research in the biological sciences" 
This modifier makes its sentence into an incredibly audacious generalization that isn't true unless it applies broadly to ALL research in ALL biosciences. You can see how this sort of thing is fundamentally unserious as a GMAT answer choice.
  Choice C works like this example, on account of "thorough analyses of current economic conditions"  .

"...about  certain  research in the biological sciences" 
WHOA suddenly we just need one line of research inquiry—or even just one study!—to FULLY support this answer choice.

Please do not try to  memorize  anything about this stuff, by the way. 
The two examples above are so massively different that one refers to the entire penumbra of a super-broad field of science, whereas the other may be talking about as little work product as 1 study from 1 researcher. Differences really don't get any bigger than this! But if you try to transmute this into an A.I.-style memory task, then you're looking at what is  objectively  a one-word difference (presence/absence of "certain").

According to many analysts, labor-management relations in the United

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 Reading Comprehension (RC) Questions

According to many analysts, labor-management relations in the United

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