Economist: Throughout the twentieth century, whenever a major manufacturing sector in our country was rendered obsolete by technological advancement, the resulting localized unemployment was consistently resolved within a decade. In each instance, the very innovations that drove the obsolescence spawned secondary industries that required the exact skill sets of the displaced workers, thereby offsetting the initial job losses. Consequently, the upcoming transition to autonomous, AI-driven logistics networks will not result in long-term structural unemployment. Although truck drivers and warehouse operators will be displaced, the AI revolution will inevitably generate new sectors that will quickly absorb these workers.
Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the economist's reasoning?
- Afails to establish that the technological advancements of the twentieth century were the primary cause of the secondary industries, rather than merely coinciding with their emergence
- Brelies on a subtle shift in the definition of the term 'obsolescence', using it to refer to the decline of physical manufacturing in the premises but the replacement of human cognitive labor in the conclusion
- presumes without warrant that the specific economic dynamics that mitigated the effects of technological displacement in the past will operate similarly during a fundamentally different kind of technological transition in the futureCevap
- Dtakes for granted that because some workers in obsolete manufacturing sectors found employment in secondary industries, all workers displaced by the AI revolution will be similarly absorbed
- Edepends on the unstated assumption that the logistics and transportation sector currently employs a smaller proportion of the national workforce than the manufacturing sector did in the twentieth century