In Forces of Production, David Noble examines the transformation of the machine-tool industry as the industry moved from reliance on skilled artisans to automation. Noble writes from a Marxist perspective, and his central argument is that management, in its decisions to automate, conspired against labor: the power that the skilled machinists wielded in the industry was intolerable to management. Noble fails to substantiate this claim, although his argument is impressive when he applies the Marxist concept of “de-skilling”—the use of technology to replace skilled labor—to the automation of the machine-tool industry. In automating, the industry moved to computer-based, digitized “numerical-control” (N/C) technology, rather than to artisan-generated “record-playback” (R/P) technology.
Although both systems reduced reliance on skilled labor, Noble clearly prefers R/P, with its inherent acknowledgment of workers’ skills: unlike N/C, its programs were produced not by engineers at their computers, but by skilled machinists, who recorded their own movements to “teach” machines to duplicate those movements. However, Noble’s only evidence of conspiracy is that, although the two approaches were roughly equal in technical merit, management chose N/C. From this he concludes that automation is undertaken not because efficiency demands it or scientific advances allow it, but because it is a tool in the ceaseless war of capitalists against labor.
5.Which of the following phrases most clearly reveals the attitude of the author of the passage toward Noble’s central argument?
(A) “conspired against” (line 6)
(B) “intolerable to management” (line 7)
(C) “impressive when he applies the Marxist concept” (line 9)
(D) “clearly prefers” (line 16)
(E) “only evidence of conspiracy” (line 21)
Could anyone explain please?
1000RC Passage 38
This topic has expert replies
-
- Legendary Member
- Posts: 1035
- Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
- Thanked: 104 times
- Followed by:1 members
would go for E. the author says the central argument of Noble was management conspired against labour, only evidence of his argument was managment chose N/P technology. also the author had mentioned "Noble fails to substantiate this claim".
=> Nobles argument was inherently weak, E brings this out.
=> Nobles argument was inherently weak, E brings this out.
- Mayur Sand
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 166
- Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2009 11:16 pm
- Location: India
IMO C clearly states that author has a Marxist thinking , which is strictly against any decisions taken against labor workers Whats the OA
-
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 6:49 am
- Thanked: 1 times
The author's central argument, like scoobydooby suggests, is that Noble's argument is weak. Of C and E, (we seem agreed these are the only ones that really convey some sort of attitude), E does a better job at conveying the author's lack of buy-in to Noble's argument. While Noble's central argument revolves around viewing the shift away from labor from a Marxist perspective, the author does not fully agree with the argument. The phrase "only evidence" indicates that the author believes Noble does not have sufficient evidence to legitimately prove a conspiracy, and supports his generally skeptical attitude towards Noble's argument. C suggests that the author is impressed by Noble's argument, which is not the case; he simply finds one specific point (the de-skilling argument) impressively argued by Noble.
Just getting started, and blogging along the way at: https://carlincognito.wordpress.com/