In the second paragraph of Passage $1$ (lines $10 - 16)$ , the author implies that the

Future workforce of other major industrialized countries will be better prepared than that of the United States

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

United States Congress is unlikely to legislate a mandate for parental leave from work

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Health care issues affecting the United States have not yet been addressed by other nations

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Long-term economic effects of deficient child care are insignificant when compared to each child's individual comfort

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Political agenda of policymakers in the United States exaggerates the need to plan for a future workforce

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is A Future workforce of other major industrialized countries will be better prepared than that of the United States
In passage 1, the author states that United States, in comparison to other industrialized nations, fails to ensure pre- and post-natal health care for mothers and infants and fails to provide adequate child care. The author goes on to state that this is one of the major reasons why there would occur a significant loss in the quality of its future workforce. Through these statements the author implies that the workforce of other industrialized nations will be in a better shape than the U.S as these nations provide better pre- and postnatal health care and child care. In this context A is the best answer.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

Directions for questions 1 to 8: Each of the following questions has a paragraph from which the last sentence has been deleted. From the given options, choose the one that completes the paragraph in the most appropriate way.

A converging set of powerful economic, technological, demographic and national security developments requires a workforce that is far more internationally savvy and expert in foreign languages and cultures. But the United State’s top business leaders and future workforce are woefully unprepared to meet the challenges of globalization. In today’s global economy, foreign language skills have become vital to our children’s future as members of the workforce and to our nation’s future success in the world.___________________________________________

Q. Many United States companies have unfortunately, made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line of work. Since 1980, the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign governments. Another 340 charge that foreign companies “dumped” their products in the United States at “less than fair value.” Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.
Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they develop an intricate web of marketing, production, and research relationships. The complexity of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company.
Internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect. Suppose a United States-owned company establishes an overseas plant to manufacture a product while its competitor makes the same product in the United States. If the competitor can prove injury from the imports—and that the United States Company received a subsidy from a foreign government to build its plant abroad—the United States Company’s products will be uncompetitive in the United States, since they would be subject to duties.
Perhaps the most brazen case occurred when the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to de-ice roads. The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate with United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The “United States” company claiming injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate, while the “Canadian” companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.
Q. The passage is chiefly concerned with

Many United States companies have, unfortunately, made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line of work. Since 1980 the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit foreign governments’ subsidies. Another 340 charge that foreign companies “dumped” their products in the United States at “less than fair value.” Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.

Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they develop an intricate web of marketing, production, and research relationships. The complexity of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company.

Internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect. Suppose a United States-owned company establishes an overseas plant to manufacture a product while its competitor makes the same product in the United States. If the competitor can prove injury from the imports—and that the United States company received a subsidy from a foreign government to build its plant abroad—the United States company’s products will be uncompetitive in the United States, since they would be subject to duties.

Perhaps the most brazen case occurred when the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to de-ice roads. The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate with United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The “United States” company claiming the injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate. In contrast, the “Canadian” companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.

Q. As per the passage, which of the following is the second-largest producer of rock salt?

Read the passage to answer the question:
Most economists in the United States seem captivated by the spell of the free market. Consequently, nothing seems good or normal that does not accord with the requirements of the free market. A price that is determined by the seller or, for that matter, established by anyone other than the aggregate of consumers seems pernicious. Accordingly, it requires a major act of will to think of price-fixing (the determination of prices by the seller) as both “normal” and having a valuable economic function. In fact, price-fixing is normal in all industrialized societies because the industrial system itself provides, as an effortless consequence of its own development, the price-fixing that it requires. Modern industrial planning requires and rewards great size. Hence, a comparatively small number of large firms will be competing for the same group of consumers. That each large firm will act with consideration of its own needs and thus avoid selling its products for more than its competitors charge is commonly recognized by advocates of free-market economic theories. But each large firm will also act with full consideration of the needs that it has in common with the other large firms competing for the same customers. Each large firm will thus avoid significant price-cutting, because price-cutting would be prejudicial to the common interest in a stable demand for products. Most economists do not see price-fixing when it occurs because they expect it to be brought about by a number of explicit agreements among large firms; it is not.

Moreover, those economists who argue that allowing the free market to operate without interference is the most efficient method of establishing prices have not considered the economies of non-socialist countries other than the United states. These economies employ intentional price-fixing, usually in an overt fashion. Formal price-fixing by cartel and informal price-fixing by agreements covering the members of an industry are commonplace. Were there something peculiarly efficient about the free market and inefficient about price-fixing, the countries that have avoided the first and used the second would have suffered drastically in their economic development. There is no indication that they have.

Socialist industry also works within a framework of controlled prices. In the early 1970’s, the Soviet Union began to give firms and industries some of the flexibility in adjusting prices that a more informal evolution has accorded the capitalist system. Economists in the United States have hailed the change as a return to the free market. But Soviet firms are no more subject to prices established by a free market over which they exercise little influence than are capitalist firms; rather, Soviet firms have been given the power to fix prices.

The author’s attitude toward “Most economists in the United States” (first line) can best be described as:

Q. As the economic role of multinational, global corporations expands, the international economic environment will be shaped increasingly not by governments or international institutions, but by the interaction between governments and global corporations, especially in the United States, Europe, and Japan. A significant factor in this shifting world economy is the trend toward regional trading blocs of nations, which has a potentially large effect on the evolution of the world trading system. Two examples of this trend are the United States-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and Europe 1992, the move by the European Community (EC) to dismantle impediments to the free flow of goods, services, capital, and labor among member states by the end of 1992. However, although numerous political and economic factors were operative in launching the move to integrate the EC’s markets, concern about protectionism within the EC does not appear to have been a major consideration. This is in sharp contrast to the FTA; the overwhelming reason for that bilateral initiative was fear of increasing United States protectionism. Nonetheless, although markedly different in origin and nature, both regional developments are highly significant in that they will foster integration in the two largest and richest markets of the world, as well as provoke questions about the future direction of the world trading system.
Q. According to the passage, one similarity between the FTA and Europe 1992 is that they both

Join BYJU'S Learning Program

In the second paragraph of Passage 1 (lines 10−16), the author implies that the

In the second paragraph of Passage $1$ (lines $10 - 16)$ , the author implies that the