🎯 16.2 CARS Worked Example II

Make sure that on Test Day, you create an outline that makes sense to you. Your outline should use symbols, abbreviations, shorthand, and other notation methods to ensure you spend as little time writing as possible. Practice with creating outlines to identify the most effective ways to write quickly and clearly.

• Which of the following would specifically bolster the author’s primary line of argumentation?

• Evidence that coordination among capitalists in the 1970s directly contributed to the decline of labor unions in the 1980s

• Findings demonstrating that current levels of inequality have eclipsed the historical records set in the 1920s

• A study showing that the rate of polarization of wealth has increased since the global financial crisis of 2007–2008

• I only

• I and II only

• II and III only

• I, II, and III

Reasoning Beyond the Text: Strength-Weaken (Strengthen), Roman numeral

Type the question

The word bolster indicates a Strengthen question of some kind, with the subjunctive would suggesting Reasoning Beyond the Text. The fact that the stem is looking specifically for an effect on the author’s primary line of argumentation suggests that the Roman numeral options may include evidence that bolsters related arguments that are only incidental to the author’s real concerns. Given the lack of references to particular parts of the text and the fact that there are multiple pieces of evidence to consider, this question might be better saved for later.

Rephrase the question stem

Which of the following Roman numerals support the author's argument?

Investigate potential solutions

One key preparation is essential before beginning the attack: clarifying the author’s primary argument. We hear the author's voice mostly clearly in paragraph 2, which states that the wealth inequality was due to the deliberate decisions on the part of political leaders.  Moreover, the suggestion that “neither the existence of economic inequality nor the fact of its continuing growth” are interesting is worth noting because this can help set expectations for the wrong kind of support.

With a Roman numeral question, a divide-and-conquer strategy is the best approach. Before doing a close reading of the Roman numerals, look at the answer choices to see if any of them appear in exactly two of the four options. This is the answer choice you’ll want to test first. If it’s true, you can eliminate the two choices in which it does not appear. If it’s false, you can eliminate the two choices in which it does appear. Then, with the two remaining options, you’ll have to evaluate only one numeral that differs between them. (If more than one numeral appears twice, then start with whichever one seems easier for you. If no numeral appears twice, you may have to test all of them; so just begin with the easiest.)

With Roman numeral questions, use a divide-and-conquer strategy. Evaluate a numeral that appears in the answer choices exactly twice to cut the possibilities in half after testing only one option.

Answer by matching, eliminating, or guessing

Following the Investigate steps outlined previously, start with numeral III. Although such ­evidence would support the claim that inequality is continuing to grow, this is precisely what the author suggests is uninteresting, definitely not the author’s primary line of argument. To support the main argument, this item would need to offer some indication that decisions by socioeconomic elites caused this accelerating growth. However, the mere mention of the financial crisis is insufficient to establish that.

Given that numeral III is false, both (C) and (D) are ruled out, and it can be inferred that I is true. Looking at II, it is readily apparent that this is more support for inequality’s existence and growth, not for the cause proposed by the author. Numeral II is thus false for roughly the same reason that III is, so (B) also can be eliminated.

The divide-and-conquer approach reveals that (A) is correct after evaluating only two of the numerals. Though you would want to select (A) on Test Day without further delay, we can confirm that only I is true by considering the impact of the sentence evidence that coordination among capitalists in the 1970s directly contributed to the decline of labor unions in the 1980s. This points to another paragraph, the sixth paragraph, where the author states that capitalist “mobilization—not coincidentally—shortly precedes the extensive disempowerment of unions in and around the 1980s” and cites the Powell Memorandum. Numeral I would definitely help to support the author’s account of how inequality was caused to increase in the 1980s and would thus bolster the primary argument.

Foundation of Comprehension: Inference (Assumption)

Type the question

The question stem asks for the most likely reason behind a judgment the author makes, which is another way of asking for an assumption. So this question type is an Inference. There’s a direct reference to paragraph 1. This might make this question a bit more workable and worth trying now, when you first encounter it, even though it concerns implicit parts of an argument.

Rephrase the question stem

Why does the author think the U-shaped curve is possibly disturbing?

Investigate potential solutions

Start by returning to the context of the quoted words: “Many measures of inequality, when plotted annually, adopt a potentially disconcerting U-shape: declining after the reforms implemented by many industrialized populations in the wake of the Great Depression, inequality is now returning to levels not seen since the 1920s—and on the verge of surpassing them.” The clauses following the colon explain the U-shape but do not really get at the ­reason for it being potentially disconcerting, that is, why it might be alarming or troubling. The correct answer has to do more; it has to explain why the return to high levels of inequality is a negative outcome. Evaluate each answer choice to assess whether it accomplishes this goal.

Match your prediction to an answer choice

(A) may seem tempting because it mentions the Great Depression. However, it simply restates the author’s description of the U-curve without explaining why it's a negative, which is a typical Faulty Use of Detail trap.

The issue with (B) is different: it offers an explanation, albeit the wrong one. It may be true that the author’s primary argument concerns the causes of this increase in inequality, but this question asks specifically about the evaluation the author makes of this increase. Asking for the reason why an outcome is good or bad is conceptually distinct from asking for the cause of that outcome. (B) is incorrect.

Although (C) does not employ the word inequality as do the other options, it does use a synonymous phrase: extreme polarization of wealth. Moreover, unlike the previous choices, this answer actually gives a reason for why this trend could be disturbing: it carries negative social consequences. The author does suggest that the wealth inequality of the 1920s was responsible for an event so negative that it came to be known as the Great Depression. So this is precisely what we are looking for. (C) matches the prediction made in the Plan step.

(C) can be confirmed as the correct option by briefly considering the final contender, (D). Although greed may not be an ­emotion that most people applaud, (D) is similar to (B) insofar as it addresses the cause of the outcome rather than an appraisal of its value. Thus, we can be confident that (C) is right.

Sometimes Inference questions ask for very specific assumptions or implications, such as pieces of information that explain a normative (value) judgment.

Reasoning Beyond the Text: Other

Type the question

The line in conjunction with the information presented by the passage suggests the answer choices present new ideas, meaning that this is Reasoning Beyond the Text. Because the question asks for an explanation of the author’s use of a term, this does not exactly fall into either the Apply or Strengthen-Weaken (Beyond) types. There’s a specific reference to the text, which may make this question more manageable. However, Other questions often can be challenging, so you may want to triage this one.

Rephrase the question stem

Along with passage information, what will help explain "not coincidentally"?

Investigate potential solutions

A question that asks for the best explanation, especially one that seems likely to bring in new information, is one that likely requires examining every answer choice. A good explanation makes the author’s intention with the phrase clear. So begin your preparation by returning to the relevant part of the text. After establishing in the fifth paragraph that labor has become less organized, the author writes the following in the sixth paragraph:

“On the other side, the capitalists have become better organized. In fact, their mobilization—not coincidentally—shortly precedes the extensive disempowerment of unions in and around the 1980s. For example, the infamous yet influential Powell Memorandum (written in 1971 by a man who would become a US Supreme Court Associate Justice) explicitly advocated coordinated action among capitalists . . .”

The suggestion is that the improved organization of the capitalists is directly connected (is not a coincidence) to the diminution of organized labor. Given that the author stresses that the one event shortly precedes the other, there is a hint that the two are causally connected (because a cause typically comes immediately before its effect). Thus, the correct response should account for how better organization among capitalists could lead to worse organization among laborers.

Answer by matching, eliminating, or guessing

Although (A) mimics the language of the passage, even echoing the author’s thesis, it fails to account for the use of this particular phrase. It is too general to account for the specific phenomenon referenced in the sixth paragraph. Eliminate it.

(B) seems a bit more promising because it connects the activities of the two classes. However, the capitalists began coordinating their efforts immediately after recognizing unions were losing their power gets the timing backward. The author says that the capitalist coordination came first, followed by the decline of the unions. So (B) is also wrong.

It may seem as if (C) provides a possible explanation, but it fails for a number of reasons. The first line of the passage notes the huge discrepancy in numbers between the wealthy class of owners and the poor class of laborers. Although the author mentions that deliberate decisions are important in the second paragraph, these are the decisions of political leaders and other elites, not the decisions of the majority of people. It’s not clear from the passage that laborers have the power simply to switch roles from employee to employer. Even if some employees could become employers (for instance, entrepreneurs and the self-employed), it seems highly unlikely that a majority of citizens could do so. Finally, this choice does not take care to distinguish between membership in organized labor unions and membership in the class of laborers (employees). The previous paragraph discusses a decline in union membership, not a decline in membership in the working class. Thus, (C) clashes with the passage too much to be a plausible answer.

The Plan was to check all four answers, so (D) should also be evaluated although we now expect it is correct. The statement the democratically elected politicians financed by neoliberal organizations enacted antilabor policies would indeed provide the necessary explanation, one that is consistent with the discussion in the passage. The quote from the ­Powell Memorandum even mentions financing as a means of attaining political power, a ­number of neoliberal politicians are noted in the third paragraph, and the fourth paragraph cites the actions of democratic officials who promote the polarization of wealth (in other words, antilabor policies). So the agreement between this choice and the passage is resounding.

Executing the Plan led to the elimination of the wrong options, revealing (D) as the correct answer.

Questions that ask for possible explanations can often be tricky. Be clear on exactly what must be explained.

Foundation of Comprehension: Inference (Implication, Scattered)

Type the question

The prominent EXCEPT calls attention to the fact this is a Scattered variant of either a Detail question or an Inference question—the word suggests is regularly used in both types. However, because it asks for something as complex as a correlation, this question most likely requires deducing some implications from the text. Given the amount of time that is potentially involved in answering a Scattered Implication question (a lot of searching through the passage for ideas that might not be explicitly stated, only implied), this would best be saved for later in a question set.

Rephrase the question stem

Which of the following pairs of occurrences have a relationship? Eliminate those that follow this statement.

Investigate potential solutions

Scattered questions (featuring words such as EXCEPT, NOT, and LEAST) typically require the process of elimination to answer. However, it’s still worthwhile to set some expectations. The correct answer will be either something that the text fails to mention or—more likely—a twisted version of information contained in the passage. Any choice that contradicts the passage or otherwise distorts its content would have to be right and could potentially be selected without testing the remaining options.

On the other hand, wrong answer choices are pairs of phenomena for which the author states or implies a correlation. Keep in mind that cause-and-effect relationships always entail a correlation between the cause and the effect. So any indication by the author of causation would thereby be a suggestion of correlation as well.

Match your prediction to an answer choice

For (A) the relevant text is at the start of the sixth paragraph: “On the other side, the capitalists have become only better organized. In fact, their mobilization—not coincidentally—shortly precedes the extensive disempowerment of unions in and around the 1980s.” The fact that the author stresses that this is not a coincidence reinforces that the relationship is intended to be more significant, potentially cause and effect. That there is at least a correlation is clear, so (A) should be ruled out.

With (B), however, there is an issue when returning to the relevant text, this time from the fifth paragraph: “From 1940 to 1980, between about one-fifth and one-fourth of all employed workers in the United States were members of labor unions. According to Piketty and associates, 1940–1980 also is the bottom of the inequality U-curve.” There’s definitely a correlation being highlighted, but it’s between high union participation and low inequality, not low ­equality. If inequality is low, then equality must be relatively high. So this choice is the opposite of what the passage suggests. Thus, without further ado, it’s safe to conclude that (B) is correct.

This can be double-checked by finding the other choices in the text. The correlation in (C) is implied in the discussion beginning with “much of the ascendance of neoliberal ideology stems from a discrepancy in organization,” and continuing throughout the final two paragraphs. For (D), the relevant text is from the third paragraph: “with the rise of the political ideology of neoliberalism . . . inequality began to rebound.” An increase in inequality entails a widening of the gap between rich and poor.

On occasion, Scattered questions can be answered without actually hunting down information for every choice. If you find a direct contradiction (or another obvious distortion), you’ve likely found your answer.

Reasoning Beyond the Text: Apply (Outcome)

Type the question

The lengthy question stem, chock full of new information, tells us this is a Reasoning Beyond the Text question. The language of most reasonable expectation tells us that this is an Apply question, specifically one that asks for an Outcome. These kinds of questions can take a while (especially with long answer choices), so consider saving them for later.

Rephrase the question stem

What will the US do if there are no restrictions on political advocacy by groups?

Investigate potential solutions

With a new scenario, the key is finding the points of connection (or analogy) with the passage. The stem says that restrictions on political advocacy spending were judged to be prohibited and that this affected corporations, unions, and other groups. In short, that means these organizations gained additional freedom to spend money on political issues at their discretion. The question stem goes on to say explicitly assuming that such spending is effective, which tells you to take it for granted that this spending can have an impact on who gets elected and what policies get enacted. The actual question amounts to the following, Given the new freedom of these groups to spend money and assuming it works, what will likely happen to inequality in the United States? Answering this is the task presented.

Before tackling these wordy answer choices, it’s worthwhile to make a prediction for the correct one. Start by clarifying the nature of the trend in inequality leading up to the Supreme Court ruling. The first paragraph mentions the more recent date of 2014, within only a few years of the date from the question stem, so it offers a good reference point. There, we’re told that “inequality is now returning to levels not seen since the 1920s—and is on the verge of surpassing them.” This is hardly an isolated statement. The idea that inequality is increasing is noted throughout the passage, which largely seeks to answer the question of why this occurs.

Now the question becomes, How will this upward trend be affected? The third paragraph offers some guidance on this question: “When labor was politically ascendant . . . inequality decreased. However, with the rise of the political ideology of neoliberalism . . . inequality began to rebound.” Thus, if the ruling benefits labor more, we should expect to see inequality decrease or at least see the rate of its increase slow or stop. However, if the ruling benefits the capitalists more, inequality should continue its rise or even accelerate.

So, who benefits more? Even though the ruling applies to both capitalist corporations and labor unions, the discussion in the last two paragraphs suggests that capitalists are in a much stronger position to take advantage of the ruling. In the fifth paragraph, the author notes that about half as many US workers belong to unions as once did (one-ninth versus one-fourth or one-fifth). The sixth paragraph is explicit about the success of capitalists in working together, even hinting that their coordinated efforts may have caused the decline in organization among laborers. Because capitalists have the advantage, the ruling will likely only exacerbate the discrepancy between rich and poor, leading to even greater inequality.

Match your prediction to an answer choice

More thorough preparation means a quicker match when you finally look at the answer choices. Only (B) is consistent with the prediction made.

(A) and (C) can both immediately be discounted because they indicate a downward trend. Moreover, there’s no reason to suppose that the restrictions prohibited by the ruling promoted the polarization of wealth nor to suspect that unions would have the ability to outspend corporations.

(D) comes closer to the truth but fails to take into account the realities described in the passage. If corporations and unions began on equal footing, it would be true that this ruling would help neither because it grants the same freedom to both. However, the passage makes it abundantly clear that the two groups are not at all on equal footing; the capitalists were ascendant when this ruling was handed down. To suggest that inequality remains at its present levels would also ignore the fact that it continues to increase. If the ruling truly had no effect on the status quo, then presumably inequality would just keep following the upward trend described in the passage.

Although a lengthy question stem takes longer to read, it also gives you more material to work with. Be sure to use that to your advantage and formulate a more thorough prediction for the correct answer.