Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardIdentifying Conclusions and Main Claims

While traditional economists contend that implementing stringent tariffs on imported raw materials inevitably safeguards domestic manufacturing employment during global market downturns, empirical evidence from mid-twentieth-century industrial shifts demonstrates a strikingly counterintuitive pattern. When raw material import costs rose due to protective duties, manufacturers were forced to economize by automating production lines far more rapidly than they would have under standard market conditions. Consequently, rather than preserving manual positions, trade restrictions inadvertently accelerated the displacement of industrial labor through capital-intensive technological adoption. Therefore, modern policymakers attempting to arrest employment declines in domestic manufacturing by elevating tariffs on essential imported inputs will ultimately catalyze the very structural job losses they intend to forestall.

Which of the following most accurately states the main conclusion of the argument?

  1. A
    Rising import costs for raw materials forced mid-twentieth-century manufacturers to rapidly economize by automating production lines.
  2. Attempting to protect domestic manufacturing jobs by imposing tariffs on raw material imports will instead hasten domestic employment losses by spurring automation.Answer
  3. C
    Traditional economists incorrectly assume that domestic manufacturing employment can never be protected through government regulatory intervention.
  4. D
    Mid-twentieth-century industrial shifts demonstrate that capital-intensive technological adoption is inherently harmful to national economic health.
  5. E
    Technological automation in manufacturing occurs primarily as a direct result of import price fluctuations rather than internal management choices.

Answer

The main conclusion of the argument is that attempting to protect domestic manufacturing jobs by imposing tariffs on raw material imports will instead hasten domestic employment losses by spurring automation.
The argument builds up to the final sentence introduced by the conclusion marker 'Therefore'. The author uses historical precedent to argue that modern tariffs on imported raw inputs will backfire by driving automation, thereby accelerating job losses. The option stating that protecting jobs via raw material tariffs will hasten employment losses by spurring automation directly captures this central claim.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Analyze the structural organization of the passage and identify indicator words.
The passage opens by acknowledging a traditional view, presents historical counter-evidence regarding automation, and concludes with the pivot word 'Therefore'.
Indicator words like 'Therefore' typically signal the main claim or final inference drawn by the author.
2
Distinguish between supporting evidence and the author's ultimate assertion.
The reference to mid-twentieth-century manufacturers serves as supporting historical evidence, whereas the final sentence applies this principle to modern policy.
Evidence and premises exist to justify the main conclusion; confusing evidence for the conclusion is a common error.
3
Match the final sentence assertion with the option that captures its precise scope without overgeneralization.
The option stating that imposing tariffs on raw material imports to protect jobs will hasten employment losses through automation precisely restates the final sentence.
The correct main claim option must accurately reflect the specific relationship and boundaries asserted in the text.

Key Concept

Identifying Main Claims and Argumentative Structure
Rate this question

Topics

Identifying Conclusions and Main Claims

More questions from this topic