Citing the fact that the real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was higher in 1997 than ever before, some journalists have argued that the United States economy performed ideally in 1997. However, the real GDP is almost always higher than ever before; it falls only during recessions. One point these journalists overlooked is that in 1997, as in the twenty-four years immediately preceding it, the real GDP per capita grew nearly one-half percent a year more slowly than it had on average between 1873 and 1973. Were the 1997 economy as robust as claimed, the growth rate of real GDP per capita in 1997 would have surpassed the average growth rate of real GDP per capita between 1873 and 1973 because over fifty percent of the population worked for wages in 1997 whereas only forty percent worked for wages between 1873 and 1973. If the growth rate of labor productivity (output per hour of goods and services) in 1997 had equaled its average growth rate between 1873 and 1973 of more than two percent, then, given the proportionately larger workforce that existed in 1997, real GDP per capita in 1997 would have been higher than it actually was, since output is a major factor in GDP. However, because labor productivity grew by only one percent in 1997, real GDP per capita grew more slowly in 1997 than it had on average between 1873 and 1973.
It can be inferred from the passage that which of the following is the reason that the author faults the journalists referred to in the highlighted text?
They believe that the real GDP per capital in 1997 was higher than the real GDP per capital had ever been before
They argue that the rate at which real GDP per capital grew in 1997 was faster than the average rate at which it had grown between 1873 and 1973.
They overestimate the effect of labor productivity on the real GDP per capital in 1997.
They overestimate the amount by which real GDP per capital in 1997 surpassed real GDP per capital in earlier years.
They fail to consider the real GDP per capital in 1997 within an appropriate historical context.
此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。
正确答案是:E。阅读材料的第一句话提到一些记者以1997年的实际国内生产总值人均值比以前任何时候都高为理由,称1997年美国经济表现良好。然而,文章指出,尽管实际GDP通常都会比以前高,但这些记者却忽略了1997年和前24年相比,实际GDP人均值的增长速度比1873年到1973年的平均增长速度慢了一半。文章还指出,如果1997年的劳动生产率增长速度等于1873年至1973年的平均增长速度(超过2%),那么考虑到1997年的劳动力比例较1873至1973年要大,1997年的实际GDP人均值应该比实际的高,因为产出是GDP的主要因素。然而,由于1997年劳动生产率增长仅为1%,1997年实际GDP人均值的增长速度比1873至1973年的平均增长速度要慢。所以,可以从文章中推断,作者批评上文提到的记者的原因是他们没有将1997年实际GDP人均值置于适当的历史背景中。因此,答案选E选项。
A本身没错,但并不是作者反驳的地方,journalist看real GDP per capita,但作者认为应该关注growth rate of real GDP per capita
B journalist并没有提到growth rate
C journalist 没提到productivity
D高估的不是amount而应该是growth rate
E. Is correct because it is telling use that Journalist failed to consider historical evidence about US economy.
"Some journalists have argued that the United States economy performed ideally in 1997. However, the real GDP is almost always higher than ever before; it falls only during recessions. One point these journalists overlooked is that in 1997, as in the twenty-four years immediately preceding it...."这些记者忽略的一点是,1997年和之前的24年一样,实际人均GDP每年的增长速度比1873年至1973年的平均速度慢了近一半。如果1997年的经济真如人们所说的那样强劲,那么1997年的实际人均GDP增长率就会超过1873年至1973年的实际人均GDP平均增长率
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论