Question 81·Hard·Text Structure and Purpose
Economists have long debated whether technological innovation inevitably displaces more jobs than it creates. A comprehensive analysis of employment data from 1980 to 2020 reveals that sectors experiencing rapid automation ultimately posted net employment gains, primarily due to the emergence of complementary occupations that did not previously exist. Analysts Hendricks and Quigley argue that such findings undermine deterministic narratives of technological unemployment and instead highlight the labor market's adaptive capacity.
Which choice best describes the function of the underlined sentence in the text as a whole?
For function questions, read at least one sentence before and after the quoted portion, then ask: “Why did the author include this sentence right here?” Decide whether it introduces a claim, provides evidence, gives an example, qualifies a point, or interprets results. Eliminate choices that add claims the text doesn’t make (especially absolutes like “only”) and pick the option that matches both the sentence’s content and its role in the paragraph’s argument.
Hints
Focus on position in the paragraph
Look at the sentence before and after the underlined sentence. Ask yourself: is the underlined sentence stating a debate, providing support, or qualifying something?
Type of information in the underlined sentence
Notice what the underlined sentence actually contains: is it someone’s opinion, a theoretical claim, a criticism, or a description of study results?
How do “such findings” work?
Pay close attention to the phrase “such findings” in the last sentence. What does that phrase refer to, and how are those findings being used in the analysts’ argument?
Eliminate answers that add elements not in the text
Cross out any choices that mention things the paragraph never brings up, such as flaws in the data or the author rejecting the data.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify what the underlined sentence is saying
Paraphrase the underlined sentence in your own words:
It says that a large study of employment data from 1980–2020 found that industries with a lot of automation actually ended up with more jobs overall, mainly because new, complementary kinds of jobs appeared.
So the sentence is describing results from a data analysis (that is, empirical evidence) and giving a specific conclusion about net employment gains.
Connect it to the sentence before
The sentence right before the underlined part says: “Economists have long debated whether technological innovation inevitably displaces more jobs than it creates.”
This is a long-standing debate or widely held concern: that technology might inevitably destroy more jobs than it creates.
Ask: How does the underlined sentence relate to that debate? It presents evidence that in automated sectors, total employment went up, not down—directly addressing that question.
Connect it to the sentence after
The next sentence says: “Analysts Hendricks and Quigley argue that such findings undermine deterministic narratives of technological unemployment and instead highlight the labor market's adaptive capacity.”
“Such findings” refers to the underlined sentence’s data. The analysts use those findings to:
- Undercut (“undermine”) the idea that technological unemployment is inevitable (a deterministic narrative).
- Emphasize that the labor market can adapt.
So the structure is:
- Debate/worry is introduced.
- Underlined sentence: data/evidence about what actually happened.
- Final sentence: analysts use that evidence to argue against the gloomy, deterministic view.
Match that role to the answer choice
Now compare this role to each answer choice:
- The best description must capture that the sentence is empirical evidence and that the passage uses it to push back against the belief that technology inevitably reduces employment.
- Choices that mainly describe variety across sectors, a shift away from net job totals, or an exclusive “only if” condition don’t match the passage’s primary use of the sentence.
Therefore, the correct option is: “It offers empirical evidence that the text employs to contest a widely held belief about the net effect of technological innovation on employment.”