Summary
When industries try to use new technology quickly, the people who can master the new technology will have success. Many people who can’t master the new technology will lose their jobs. But if a business tries to resist using new technology, they’ll eventually lose to businesses that do use new technology, and all of their employees will lose their jobs.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
We’re supposed to fill in a blank concerning businesses that resist new technology. One reasonable conclusion is that those businesses are not doing something that will save their employees’ jobs.
A
is less likely to dislocate workers than it is to create job security for them
Antisupported. The stimulus indicates that businesses that resist new technology will lose out to other businesses and their employees will lose their jobs.
B
will affect only those who possess technical skills
Antisupported. Businesses that resist new technology will get their employees fired. That’s an effect on all employees, not just those who posses technical skills.
C
cannot prevent job loss in the long run
Strongly supported. The stimulus indicates that businesses that resist new technology will lose out to other businesses and thereby lead to job loss for all of their employees.
D
eventually creates more jobs than it destroys
Unsupported. The stimulus doesn’t discuss or suggest anything concerning what will create new jobs.
E
must take priority over any attempt to promote new industries
Unsupported. The stimulus discusses a negative consequence to employees by resisting technology. There’s no reason the author would suggest that businesses should prioritize resisting technology above some other activity.