PrepTest 157, Section 3, Question 5
Taylorism, the early-twentieth-century industrial efficiency movement pioneered by(60 more words not shown)
The situation described above most(9 more words not shown)
- ASometimes measures that(9 more words not shown)
- BSome developments in(14 more words not shown)
- CIncreased efficiency in(17 more words not shown)
- DAn increase in(18 more words not shown)
- EWorkers who have(18 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
A better paycheck doesn't necessarily make the work itself more interesting.
Taylor's methods increased efficiency and productivity, and workers' standards of living improved. That's the benefit. At the same time, their jobs became more routine and repetitive. Work that once called for creativity and talent lost some of that appeal. That's the cost.
We don't need to decide that Taylorism was good or bad overall. Both effects can happen together. Someone could appreciate a more comfortable life and still miss having interesting problems to solve at work. The passage asks us to hold those two thoughts at once, not cancel one with the other.
What we’re looking for
The question wants a generalization illustrated by this situation. I'd predict that an industrial change can improve workers' financial circumstances while making their jobs less rewarding in another way. Keep both the gain and the loss, and don't turn this one example into a rule about every improvement in living standards.
Working the answers
- A
“Deleterious” means harmful. This says measures that seem to promote efficiency actually harm efficiency. But the passage accepts that efficiency increased. The downside concerns the character of the work, not a hidden decrease in how efficiently it gets done.
- BCorrect
This matches both effects. Workers benefit financially through a higher standard of living, while more repetitive jobs provide less of the satisfaction associated with creativity and talent. The modest claim that some developments can have this combination of effects fits the example we were given.
- C
We aren't told how much effort workers put into their jobs. A repetitive job could still require intense effort. Increased efficiency could come from organizing work differently rather than from workers trying less. The passage doesn't supply this proposed decrease.
- D
This makes a broad prediction about increases in living standards, while the passage describes a particular industrial development. It also changes a loss of some intrinsic reward into a decline in how much workers value their jobs overall. A worker might dislike the repetition but value the job more because of the better pay. We can't settle that overall judgment from the tradeoff described.
- E
The passage mentions creativity and talent as features of the work, but it doesn't compare groups of workers with different levels of those qualities. We have no basis for saying unusually creative workers are less efficient than average ones.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.