It can be inferred from the passage that which of the

Question

Need help with this question.

ConnectTheDots · Answer

I would go for E.

The author first tells that the journalists are wrong to say 1997 was ideal year for GDP growth only because of higher GDP. Then the author goes on explaining why he feels so and how with respect to history 1997 was not that ideal.

Now look at the options:

A. Incorrect.The journalists overlooked the productivity factor and they never segregated GDP grwoth to real GDP and productivity.

B. Incorrect. The journalists did not argue. They overlooked the fact.

C. Incorrect. Again, the journalists did not consider productivity.

D. Incorrect. The journalists did not overestimate. They just concluded based on a overall view without digging deep.

E. Correct. The journalists overlooked the factors as they did not consider the historical context.

Whats the OA and which one did you choose ?

gmatbull · Answer

Options A and E are top contenders.

B is out 'cos the journalists never mentioned that; in fact, the author suggested otherwise.
C: Rather, the author suggest that the effect of labor productivity downplayed the stated position of the journalists
D: the passage talks about "growth rate" and not "amount" of GDP between the two periods

A: true the journalists relied on the higher '97GDP in saying that the economy performed excellently. 
However, the author went further to prove that a snapshot view of the differing GDP's is not enough.
In doing this, the author made various assertions.

(i) Real GDP is usually higher than ever before...the GDP has been growing at a SLOWER RATE in the last 24 years.
However, GDP in ’97 grew by 1% LESS than observed between 1873-1987:

(ii) Given that a higher %tage were in d labor force in ’97, the growth rate for ’97 ought to be > Avg growth 
rate for 1873-1987; But that was not the case. How can we say the economy performed ideally?

(iii) GDP is a measure at which labor productivity.grows.
Labor productivity rate for 1873-1987 =2%; if that for '97 were the same, then the real 97GDP would have 
been > 1873-1987Avg GDP. (’cos 97 had larger workforce)
But no, Labor prod in 97GDP grew by ONLY 1%; hence, real 97GDP GREW MORE SLOWLY than the Avg 73-87GDP

The author used various economic factors between the 2 periods to show that real GDP growth for 97 was 
at a rate lower than the rate for 1873-1987. In that case, how can the journalists say that the '97 economy
did ideally? It was supposed to perform even better given the same opportunity.

The author faulted the journalists by stating comparisons in proper historical context.

CharuKapoor · Answer

Will go with E as well. A is definitely mentioned but the author goes beyond this as mentioned by gmatbull.

Marcab · Answer

As per the source and the discussion, the OA is indeed E. Good job guys.

mbaiseasy · Answer

A. The author did not dispute the amount and actual calculation of GDP.
B. the journalists overlooked growth rates. Hence, they could not have argued about it.
C. The author contends that despite the actual GDP, they failed to consider the GDP against historical context like wages and labor productivity. But it was not mentioned whether journalists overestimated labor prod.
D. Amount and actual GDP is accepted.
E. Correct. This is the author's structure. He mentioned things overlooked and when considered would make the GDP not that thriving as interpreted.

Thanks from this question.

It can be inferred from the passage that which of the

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