Question 42·Hard·Central Ideas and Details
In 2023, economic historian Marisol Devera examined the employment records of two neighboring textile factories, Mill A and Mill B, operating in the same Midwestern town between 1880 and 1900. Mill A adopted a "piece-rate" system—workers were paid per unit produced—whereas Mill B continued paying a fixed daily wage. Devera found that average monthly earnings at Mill A surpassed those at Mill B by nearly 15%. However, she also discovered that overall productivity (units produced per worker per hour) differed by less than 2% between the two mills. Devera therefore concluded that the earnings disparity was driven primarily by the payment system rather than by differences in worker efficiency or machinery.
Which statement best explains why the finding about productivity was critical to Devera’s conclusion?
For questions asking why a particular detail is important to a conclusion, first underline or restate the conclusion in your own words, then identify exactly what the referenced detail says. Next, decide what role that detail plays: does it provide an example, give a definition, show a pattern, or rule out an alternative explanation? Finally, eliminate answer choices that introduce new information not in the passage or that describe a different role than the one you identified, and select the option that most precisely matches how the detail supports or strengthens the author’s reasoning.
Hints
Locate the conclusion
Reread the final sentence and put Devera’s conclusion in your own words. What is she claiming is the main cause of the earnings difference between the two mills?
Focus on the productivity detail
Look at the sentence about productivity being different by less than 2%. What does that tell you about how similar or different the workers’ output is at the two mills?
Think about alternative explanations
If someone doubted Devera’s conclusion, what other reason might they give for why workers in Mill A earn more? How does the information about similar productivity affect that other possible reason?
Step-by-step Explanation
Restate the researcher’s conclusion
Look closely at the last sentence: "Devera therefore concluded that the earnings disparity was driven primarily by the payment system rather than by differences in worker efficiency or machinery." Her main claim is about the cause of the earnings difference—she says it comes from how workers are paid, not from workers or machines being more efficient in one mill.
Identify the specific finding in question
The question asks about "the finding about productivity." Earlier in the paragraph we read that overall productivity—units produced per worker per hour—"differed by less than 2% between the two mills." So the key fact is that per‑worker output was almost the same at both mills.
Think about a possible alternative explanation
If you only knew that workers at Mill A earned about 15% more than workers at Mill B, a natural alternative explanation would be: maybe Mill A’s workers (or machines) are more efficient, so they produce more and therefore earn more. The productivity finding matters because it directly addresses whether such an efficiency difference actually exists.
Match this role of evidence to the best answer
Since productivity differed by less than 2%, the workers at the two mills were essentially equally productive. This means Devera can rule out differences in worker efficiency or machinery as the main cause of the earnings gap, strengthening her claim that the pay system is the real driver. The only option that describes this role—removing a reasonable alternative cause by showing similar productivity—is It eliminated a plausible alternative cause for the earnings difference by demonstrating that workers at the two mills were similarly productive.