PrepTest 157

This answer choice quite doesn't match our anticipation, so we can quickly discard it. After all, this answer choice makes "highly trained workers" the subject of the conclusion. Although the passage concedes that they have more job security than workers with less training, the passage focuses on mass production techniques in modern industrial economies and their effect on workers with little training. Making "highly trained workers" the subject of the conclusion would represent a jarring shift in the argument's focus. It's probably true that highly trained workers have more purchasing power than less skilled workers (since highly skilled workers have more job security and, therefore, more dependable income and more access to credit). However, this answer choice still doesn't work as the argument's conclusion since the argument only uses highly trained workers to make a point about workers with little training.

This answer choice doesn't match our anticipation, so we can toss it out. For one, it only focuses on mass production techniques' downsides — that they "decrease benefits for workers." That's not accurate, as the premise brings up a benefit — workers increased ability to purchase goods. Moreover, this answer choice says that mass production techniques increase owners' profits. That's not supported by the premises. We know that owners are selling goods at a lower price, which may reduce their overall profits.

This answer choice doesn't match our anticipation, so we can cross it off. After all, this answer choice brings up the "highest paid employees [sic]," whom the passage never discusses. We know that workers with little training have low job security. But perhaps the highest-paid employees are highly skilled or otherwise needed to run modern industries. Therefore, this doesn't work as the argument's conclusion.

This answer choice matches our anticipation. As we anticipated, this answer choice matches the ambivalence the passage conveys about mass production techniques in modern industrial economies. And the passage supports both inferences about mass production techniques. It's true that these techniques "increase purchasing power for workers," as workers can "buy goods that they previously would not have been able to afford." It's also true that these techniques "undermine[ workers'] job security," as the techniques make "workers with little training ... more vulnerable to elimination." Since this answer choice is a conclusion we can validly draw from the premises and conforms to the point the premises appear to make, it functions as an appropriate conclusion to this argument.

This answer choice doesn't match our anticipation, so we can eliminate it. After all, this answer choice is too bold. We know that modern industrial economies reduce the job security of workers with little training. But we don't know how many workers lose their jobs. Given that the lower price of goods allows more "workers to buy goods that they previously would not have been able to afford," all of these workers would need to be laid off to offset this increase and result in a net reduction of the percentage of workers who can afford to purchase goods.