Q1 - When industries rapidly apply new

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Inference (Most Logically Completes)

Stimulus Breakdown:
New technology forces people to adapt or lose their jobs. If a firm doesn't adopt new technology, it'll close and all the employees will lose their jobs.

Answer Anticipation:
If forced with the choice of working for a company where everyone loses their job, or only some do, I'm going with the latter. Since the conclusion here is about resisting new tech, the author is pushing for it being worse for employees than the alternative.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. The argument doesn't talk about dislocate (unless you take it to broadly mean they have to locate to a new job instead of a new area). Additionally, this answer means it's more likely to create job security, which is the opposite direction the author is pushing in.

(B) Opposite. Resisting technology is shown to result in everyone losing their jobs, which would include those who possess technical skills.

(C) Boom. While short-term it might not lead to job loss, the long-term result will be the firm closing down and everyone losing their jobs. So resisting change can't prevent long-term job loss.

(D) Unwarranted comparison, and opposite. The stimulus doesn't talk about job creation. If anything, though, the resistance is going to lose jobs, which cuts against this answer.

(E) Out of scope. The argument is about an industry adopting new tech, not the creation of new industries. Also, this answer makes resisting tech sound like a good thing, where the stimulus gives reasons to believe it's not.

Takeaway/Pattern:
These fill-in questions are often about comparing two outcomes. Pay attention to what is said about both, and relate them in the answer.

#officialexplanation