Q10

[laurenvarg]

The authors would be most likely to agree with which one of the following statements?

Correct answer:

A. Expected financial gains alone may not be a reliable indicator of the likelihood that na individual will migrate.

Support: In the third paragraph, the authors lay out the sources that hinder people from migrating. These three reasons outlined are a mixture of difficulties and cost. Difficulties include uncertainty of the market, the third discusses a change in culture and language. The second one directly relates to cost.
In the fourth paragraph the economists address their theory, which is how previous migrants lessened some of these burdens (they gave information, and they helped them adapt to local culture. They also helped ease the cost. But this all suggests that the authors believe there are other factors aside from financial gains alone that will dictate whether an individual will migrate.

---
B. This answer is tempting. The passage begins with this background information. However the authors are actually focused on explaining the continuation of the migration.

C. The authors slightly reference other migration movements (when they discuss research and patterns) but we definitely don't have support for the "most" found in this answer. This also does draw comparisons to the ones that it references. Eliminate.

D. Most? Again, we have no idea about the percent of large-scale migrations that fall into this pattern. Eliminate.

E. There's nothing to suggest that this was the first or close to first time this happened. Maybe in the US, but this is way too strong and unsupported.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great work again!

I want to just add-on / emphasize how useful an ear for loaded language can be when we're doing "inferred/implies/suggests/most likely to agree" questions.

(B) "must"
(C) "most"
(D) "most"
(E) "generally"

Meanwhile, our actual answer is the easiest claim to defend.

"Looking at only one factor may not be a reliable way to determined the likelihood of a really complex decision being made."

[laurenvarg]

This is very helpful. I could not figure out why B was actually wrong. It's seemingly correct since they did start their own explanation that way. The "must" is the kicker, which I didn't notice no matter how many times I read over it! Thank you!

[ohthatpatrick]

Well, I was just emphasizing the extreme language part of it, but there's another part, too.

It says that "most historians" consider the Great Migration to have begun in 1915.

If the authors of the passage are aligned in their thinking with "most historians" on this matter, then there's no reason why a complete explanation of the Great Migration needs to talk about 19th century stuff.

If the GM began in 1915, a complete explanation might need only to explain what happened in 1915 - beyond.

[HannahS74]

I crossed C out when I did this as practice because of the Most, but looking at in in review, I was getting confused. In the passage, in paragraph 3 it says "economists typically assumed people migrate if their expected earnings in the destination exceed those of the origin." Is D wrong because we don't know that the economists' assumption actually applies to most large migrations? Does typically = most?

And then similarly for C, I thought the economists claim might be a broad pattern that applied to the Great Migration because the Great Migration started with the income gap in lines 17-19. Is C wrong because migration continued after the income differences narrowed, which would go against that general trend? Or we don't actually know the earnings calculation is a general trend, the economists just assume it is?

Sorry if I'm totally overthinking these just trying to nail down why the wrong are wrong. Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

typically = most,
but that sentence you're talking about is saying "MOST economists assume that people migrate when their expected earnings exceed their current earnings enough to make them willing to go through the pain of moving".

What most economists assume does not have to align with how most migrations have come about.

Most of them could be wrong!

Also, the Great Migration seems to fit that description, at least in its "broadest pattern".

Line 16-19 aligns with the notion held by most economists: Great Migration happened once the N-S income gap became large enough to motivate people to go through the pain of moving.

The passage is dealing with the more specific curiosity of the Great Migration's "extra" unexpected ending.

But even THAT explanation still basically fits the idea of the economists:
at first, it seems like an exception to that pattern, since the income gap had shrunk enough by the end that it shouldn't have been enough anymore to overcome the pain of moving. But the author's main point in the passage is that "the pain of moving" had gone down a lot, since earlier migrants made the transition much easier.

So the extra ending surge of the Great Migration still basically fits the pattern: people migrate because the anticipated gains outweigh the pains of moving.
Once the pain of moving is lowered, the gains don't need to be as big to outweigh them.