2 CR questions

[chetanxc]

Contrary to the statements of labor leaders, the central economic problem facing America today is not the distribution of wealth. It is productivity. With the productivity of U.S. industry stagnant, or even declining slightly, the economic pie is no longer growing. Labor leaders, of course, point to what they consider an unfair distribution of the slices of pie to justify their demands for further increases in wages and benefits. And in the past, when the pie was still growing, management could afford to acquiesce. No longer. Until productivity resumes its growth, there can be no justification for further increases in the compensation of workers.
Which of the following statements by a labor leader focuses on the logical weakness in the argument above?
(A) Although the economic pie is no longer growing, the portion of the pie allocated to American workers remains unjustly small.
(B) If management fails to accommodate the demands of workers, labor leaders will be forced to call strikes that will cripple the operation of industry.
(C) Although productivity is stagnant, the U.S. population is growing, so that the absolute size of the economic pie continues to grow as well.
(D) As a labor leader, I can be concerned only with the needs of working people, not with the problems faced by management.
(E) The stagnation of U.S. industry has been caused largely by factors"”such as foreign competition"”beyond the control of American workers.

Freud’s theories of the workings of the mind, while brilliant for their day, were formulated before most of this century’s great advances in neurophysiology and biochemistry. Today, we have a far deeper understanding of the biological components of thought, emotion, and behavior than was dreamed of eighty years ago. It would be foolish to continue parroting Freud’s psychological theories as if these advances had never occurred.
It can be inferred from the passage above that the author would be most likely to favor
(A) the abandonment of most of Freud’s theories
(B) a greater reliance on biological rather than psychological explanations of behavior
(C) a critical reexamination of Freud’s place in the history of psychology
(D) a reexamination of Freud’s theories in the light of contemporary biology
(E) increased financial support for studies in neurophysiology and biochemistry

For 1, I chose C and for 2, I chose B. But OA for 1 is A and for 2 is D. Can someone please explain?

[george.kourdin]

what is the source for these questions?

1) i am not buying A for the first answer (picked B), but i could obv be wrong. someone else care to expain?

2) no idea what parroting means, but let's just go with it....my take on this is that freud was a big deal, but today we have some high-end bio-driven stuff that gives us a better understanding of the concepts that freud preached. therefore, it would be silly to aknowledge/consider (insert_other_best_guess_here) Freud's work without giving some tribute to these high-end bio advances.

in other words, we need to give tribute/consider advances in neuropsych/biochem when dealing with freudian concepts.

with that in mind....

a) a bit too hard. author never advoactes abandoment. in fact he aknowledges the importance of freud's work.
b) another no...the author aknowledges bio advances and states that now we have a better understanding of these concepts, but at no point does he advocate one theory/work over the other. basically A and B are polar opposities of each other and are both wrong.
c) somewhat tricky wording - wrong because we are do not care about Freud's place in history. the argument deals with his theories/work.
d) winner
e) out of scope/irrelevant - argument never even hints at the subject of money

[tim]

As per the forum rules, we need a verifiable source for the problem before we can deal with this question. If the question is not one of ours or one that is copyright-free, we will have to delete the question..

[shree.neve]

what is the source for these questions?

1) i am not buying A for the first answer (picked B), but i could obv be wrong. someone else care to expain?

2) no idea what parroting means, but let's just go with it....my take on this is that freud was a big deal, but today we have some high-end bio-driven stuff that gives us a better understanding of the concepts that freud preached. therefore, it would be silly to aknowledge/consider (insert_other_best_guess_here) Freud's work without giving some tribute to these high-end bio advances.

in other words, we need to give tribute/consider advances in neuropsych/biochem when dealing with freudian concepts.

with that in mind....

a) a bit too hard. author never advoactes abandoment. in fact he aknowledges the importance of freud's work.
b) another no...the author aknowledges bio advances and states that now we have a better understanding of these concepts, but at no point does he advocate one theory/work over the other. basically A and B are polar opposities of each other and are both wrong.
c) somewhat tricky wording - wrong because we are do not care about Freud's place in history. the argument deals with his theories/work.
d) winner
e) out of scope/irrelevant - argument never even hints at the subject of money

For the first CR,A should be the answer
Labor leaders point to what they consider an unfair distribution of the slices of pie to justify their demands for further increases in wages and benefits-The author ignores this reasoning and goes ahead to say that unless the pie starts growing,there can be no increases in wages

(A) Although the economic pie is no longer growing, the portion of the pie allocated to American workers remains unjustly small.

This implies that the argument of the labor leaders still stands

[tim]

still waiting for a source..