GPrep Critical Reasoning with Automation

[gkumar]

Please provide explanation for your answers to the below TWO critical reasoning questions (no IMOs!). OAs will be provided.

In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipment in order to save money. However,many workers who lose their jobs to automation will need government assistance to survive, and the same corporations that are laying people off will eventually pay for that assistance through increased taxes and unemployment insurance payments.

The author is arguing that

(A) higher taxes and unemployment insurance payments will discourage corporations from automating

(B) replacing people through automation to reduce production costs will result in increases of other costs to corporations.

(C) many workers who lose their jobs to automation will have to be retrained for new jobs

(D) corporations that are laying people off will eventually rehire many of them

(E) corporations will not save money by automating because people will be needed to run the new machines


Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the author's argument?

(A) Many workers who have already lost their jobs to automation have been unable to find new jobs.

(B) Many corporations that have failed to automate have seen their profits decline.

(C) Taxes and unemployment insurance are paid also by corporations that are not automating.

(D) Most of the new jobs created by automation pay less than the jobs eliminated by automation did.

(E) The initial investment in machinery for automation is often greater than the short-term savings in labor costs.

[kiennguyen]

B & B( I'm confused)

[akhilkathuria]

1. B.

It restates the fact which author is saying in the passage. If you fire people, those people have to be supported by govt by increase in taxes. So companies save money by firing loose by paying taxes

2. A

because the only way government have to help those fired people is if they dont earn, so no job, no money hence answer A

[gkumar]

OA is B and A!

kiennguyen , can you describe your process of elimination and clarify why the OA is A and not E is the correct answer?

[kiennguyen]

after re-approaching this question, I have some opinions:
1) A. may or may not happen ( since the passage does not provide enough information such a specific company with its balance between the saving of labor cost and the increase of taxes and other fees, we can not say "yes" or "no")
B. yes. It is mentioned in the last sentence.
C. not mentioned.
D. irrelevant.
E. this contradicts with the argument.

2) in this question, I'm confused between A&B. however, A is the better.
_the premise: fired workers need money, then government gives them money. Money comes from higher taxes and payments which the same corporations have to pay. therefore:
A. support the argument. if fired workers haven't been employed, government would still have to give them money. corporations...therefore, it may not a good idea to automation.
B. weaken the argument.
C. weaken the argument.
D. not enough information to weaken or strengthen the argument.
E. this presents the comparison between The initial investments in machinery for automation and the short-term savings in labor costs. however, when a company invests in equipments, it targets the long term operation. therefore, this question would be an answer if it makes a comparison between the long term savings, such as in a 15-year operation, in machinery and that in labor costs.

tell me if not clear!

[enniguy]

B & C.

1.
Note that this question is asking for "Assumption".
Observe the words in the question ...in order to save money...will eventually pay...
Hence the author is arguing the corporations will eventually spend money as option B mentions.
What are other costs? Taxes paid to govt. to assist laid off employees under "Unemployment maintenance schemes" (Just an example).

2. This is a more challenging question. This question can easily be understood if you can spot the assumption in the argument (Which is the answer to Question 1). This answer is a restatement of the conclusion