Use the Worked Example below, in tandem with the subsequent practice passages, to internalize and apply the strategies described in this chapter. The Worked Example matches the specifications and style of a typical MCAT Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills (CARS) passage.
| Passage | Analysis |
| …Until last year, many people—but not most economists—thought that economic data told a simple tale. On one side, productivity—the average output of an average worker—was rising. And although the rate of productivity increase was very slow during the 1970s and early 1980s, the official numbers said that it had accelerated significantly in the 1990s. By 1994, an average worker was producing about 20 percent more than 1978. |
A Scan of the passage tells us that we’re dealing with a economics passage. These tend to be long, contain dense paragraphs, and are full of technical jargon. We can take comfort here because we know that they’re very focused on arguments, and much of the jargon is merely evi-dence supporting said arguments. If we can figure out the argument elements and tone, we should be good to go. We see Until last year, something about economic data, and the author hints that it must be more compli-cated than it seems. We can use this implication to help anticipate where this passage might be going. So far, we know that increasing worker productivity is at the heart of some disagreement involving economists. A Label for this paragraph could be: P1. Productivity increased 70s to 80s, complex economic reason? |
| On
the other hand, other statistics said that real, inflation-adjusted wages had
not been rising at the same rate. Some commonly cited numbers showed real wages
actually falling over the last 25 years. Those who did their homework knew that
the gloomiest numbers overstated the case...Still, even the most optimistic
measure, the total hourly compensation of the average worker, rose only 3
percent between 1978 and 1994… |
On the other hand immediately clues us in that we’re about to see the other side of the argument: wages, at least to some degree, did not keep up. Barely two paragraphs into the passage, we have the fundamentals of the whole argument, productivity vs. wages. Those who did their homework clues us into the author’s opinion—that the numbers, while bad, were not as bad as some say. We can start to anticipate where the passage as a whole may be going; the author will likely analyze how productivity and wages actually changed during the time period from 1978 to 1994. Expect that the author’s argument will be ripe for questions. This paragraph can be Labeled as: P2. Wages barely increased, Auth: pessimistic overstatement |
| ...But
now, experts tell us it may have been a figment of our statistical
imaginations...a blue-ribbon panel of economists headed by Michael Boskin of
Stanford declared that the Consumer Price Index [C.P.I.] had been
systematically overstating inflation, probably by more than 1 percent per year
for the last two decades, mainly failing to take account of changes in consumption
patterns and product quality improvements… |
We love seeing Difference keywords lead off paragraphs. We’re about to counter some part of the argument. We just have to be careful that we know which argument the author is contradicting and what it in the first sentence refers to. In this case, experts tell us that the gloom indicated by depressed wages in paragraph 2 is likely not as bad as was thought. Michael Boskin’s work on the C.P.I. and inflation is also seemingly supported by the author, who refers to the group as a blue-ribbon panel. Language this positively descriptive, along with what we saw in the last paragraph, gives us a really good idea that the author thinks the wage data is not as bad as some people make it out to be. An appropriate Label is: P3. Counterargument: Boskin cites inflation/C.P.I. errors |
| ...The
Boskin Report, in particular, is not an official document—it will be quite a
while before the Government actually issues a revised C.P.I., and the eventual
revision may be smaller than Boskin proposed. Still, the general outline of the
resolution is pretty clear. When revisions are taken into account, productivity
growth will probably look somewhat higher than before because some of the
revisions will also affect how we calculate growth. But the rate of growth of
real wages will look much higher—roughly in line with productivity. In other
words, the whole story about workers not sharing in productivity gains will
turn out to have been based on a statistical illusion... |
The Boskin report is not an official document, it will be quite a while before revision happens, and the revision may be smaller all give us a sense of tone. We already saw that the author tends to agree with Boskin. Here, we get a sense of the limits of applicability of Boskin’s work. All of the aforementioned points suggest that some aspect of Boskin’s work won’t be a huge deal. Further, because productivity growth will probably look somewhat higher, the Moderating keywords tell us that Boskin’s work doesn’t drastically alter the productivity growth-based view from paragraph 1. However, the growth of real wages will look much higher, so Boskin’s work will more dramatically affect the argument about wages seen in paragraph 2. Handily, in other words summarizes this all for us: wages will parallel productivity. We can use this summary provided by the author to verify the Goal we identified at the start of the paragraph. This paragraph could be Labeled: P4. With Boskin’s revisions, productivity will parallel real wages |
| It
is important not to go overboard on this point. There are real problems in
America, and our previous concerns were not pure hypochondriasis. For one,
economic progress over the past 25 years has been much slower than in the
previous 25. Even if Boskin’s numbers are right, median family income—which officially
has experienced virtually no gain since 1973—has risen by only about 35 percent
over the past 25 years, compared with 100 percent over the previous 25.
Furthermore, it is likely that if we “Boskinized” the old data—that is, if we
tried to adjust the C.P.I. for the 50s and 60s to take account of changing
consumption patterns and rising product quality—we would find that official
numbers understated the rate of progress just as much if not more than they did
in recent decades… |
The author explicitly tells us not to go overboard on the point of the previous paragraph and follows that up with the key phrase even if Boskin’s numbers are right. We know Boskin has been used as evidence for some facets of the author’s argument. At the same time, though, this paragraph lets us know that there is still some problem that can’t be solved when then data is “Boskinized.” Applying Boskin’s method to even older data might justify the same sort of problem that paragraph 1 brought up. A Label for this paragraph is: P5. Boskin limits: income gains may still look small historically |
| ...Moreover,
while workers as a group have shared fully in national productivity gains, they
have not done so equally. The overwhelming evidence of a huge increase in
income inequality in America has nothing to do with price indices and is
therefore unaffected by recent statistical revelations. Families in the bottom
fifth, who had 5.4 percent of total income in 1970, had only 4.2 percent in
1994; over the same period, the top 5 percent went from 15.6 to 20.1. Corporate
CEOs, who used to make about 35 times as much as their employees, now make 120
times as much or more… |
Moreover tells us that the author is continuing support for the prior paragraph. Not only were income gains small, but workers have not [shared] equally in productivity gains and there has been a huge increase in income inequality. The author then includes statistics to demonstrate this point. A Label for this paragraph is: P6. Income inequality increased |
| ...While
these are real and serious problems, however, one thing is now clear: the truth
about what is happening in America is more subtle than the simplistic morality
play about greedy capitalists and oppressed workers that so many would-be
sophisticates accepted only a few months ago. |
One thing is now clear tells us that whatever comes next is important. The wage disparities laid out above don’t have a simplistic explanation. If we had picked up on the notion of complexity in the first paragraph, this should reassure us that we predicted correctly. Had we missed the notion, this would give us a second chance to pick up on this important point. This paragraph is Labeled as: P7. Auth: This is a complicated situation |
Here’s a sample Outline and Goal for this passage:
P1. Productivity increased 70s to 80s, complex economic reason?
P2. Wages barely increased, Auth: pessimistic overstatement
P3. Counterargument: Boskin cites inflation/C.P.I. errors
P4. With Boskin’s revisions, productivity will parallel real wages
P5. Boskin limits: income gains may still look small historically
P6. Income inequality increasedP7. Auth: This is a complicated situation
Goal: To argue that the C.P.I., with or without Boskin’s work, understated real wages; and that the productivity/wage disparity is more complicated than it first appears
| Question | Analysis |
| 1. According to the passage, “Boskinization” adjusts the C.P.I. by: | The words according to the passage tell us this is a Detail question, which should be quick points. The term “Boskinized” appears in paragraph 5, where we find that it means that Boskin adjusted the C.P.I. to take account of changing consumption patterns and rising product quality. This is a solid prediction. |
| A. increasing
wages and decreasing productivity to reconcile the present disparity. |
(A) may be tempting because Boskin’s model did, in the
end, increase apparent wages, but the passage makes no mention of decreasing productivity measures, making this choice Out of
Scope. This choice also does not match with how the term “Boskinized”
is used in the passage. |
| B. taking
into account technology’s role in an improved efficiency. |
(B) is also Out of Scope because there is no
mention of technology’s role in the passage. |
| C. reassessing
patterns of consumption and quality of product. |
This
choice is a spot-on match with the prediction, making (C) the correct answer. |
| D. evaluating
the inequalities in various levels of incomes. |
(D) gives us an option that discusses wage inequality. However,
this idea was a facet of the author’s argument, not of Boskin’s revisions. This is a
Faulty Use of Detail answer choice. |
| 2. The Boskin Report does all of the following EXCEPT: | The word EXCEPT shows us that this is a Scattered Detail question—one that might be worth skipping on Test Day until more time is available. Our Plan is to use the Outline to find relevant details and eliminate them systematically, keeping in mind that the correct answer is the one NOT included in the passage. |
| A. reveals
that the C.P.I. was inaccurate. |
Paragraph
3 tells us that the Boskin Report demonstrated that the C.P.I. had
been systematically overstating inflation, eliminating (A). |
| B. reconciles
the present disparity between productivity and wage levels. |
Paragraph
4 shows us that Boskin did reconcile wages and productivity, eliminating (B). |
| C. reveals
the reasons for the increasing disparity between the highest and lowest income
earners. |
(C) is not present in the passage. While the income
disparity was discussed, no mention was made of its causes—making this the
correct answer. |
| D. provides
possible clarification for economic progress in the 1950s and 1960s. |
In paragraph 5, we see that Boskin’s work, if applied to the 1950s and 1960s, could find that official numbers understated the rate of progress, eliminating (D). |
| 3. The author mentions the figures in paragraph 6 in order to show that: | The phrase in order to shows us that this is a Function question, which usually means fast points. According to our Outline, paragraph 6 focused on how income inequality increased. |
| A. the
total productivity of America has not seen a significant increase since the
1970s. |
(A) can be eliminated because the focus of paragraph
6 is income inequality, not increases in total productivity. |
| B. the
income inequality in America is a problem that is not eliminated by revision of
the price index. |
(B) deals with wage discrepancy
and must be the
correct answer. |
| C. each
American worker’s productivity is directly proportional to overall national
productivity gains. |
(C) is an Opposite because the author states that while workers…have shared…in national productivity gains, they
have not done so equally. |
| D. Boskin’s
report is unable to explain the discrepancy between productivity growth and
wage increases. |
(D) deals with a discrepancy, but not the right
one. This paragraph focuses on income inequality, not
the discrepancy between productivity growth and wage
increases. |
| 4. The author’s primary purpose in presenting this passage is to: | The words primary purpose identify this as a Main Idea question, which usually can be answered quickly. The Goal in this passage is to argue that the C.P.I., with or without Boskin’s work, understated real wages; and that the productivity/wage disparity is more complicated than it first appears. |
| A. argue
that overreliance on the C.P.I. is insufficient for explaining the current state
of the American worker. |
(A) is correct;
the passage primarily addresses the idea
that the C.P.I.…understated real wages (and therefore
does not fully explain the current state of the American worker). |
| B. argue
that wages actually increased from 1978 to 1994. |
In (B),
the answer is far too
specific as it applies only to paragraph 2 and not the entire passage. |
| C. argue
that a capitalistic oppression of the worker is the primary cause of the
current economic climate. |
The capitalist oppression
of the worker is part of the simplistic
model dismissed in paragraph 7. Because the author does not agree with this
model, (C) can be eliminated. |
| D. suggest
that partisan division in Congress would be more adequate for explaining the
current economic climate. |
Congressional divide, while perhaps present in
real life, was never mentioned in the passage, making (D) Out
of Scope. |
| 5. The author’s use of the term “statistical imagination” in paragraph 3 most nearly indicates: | This is a Definition-in-Context question. A quick Scan of paragraph 3 shows us that statistical imagination refers to a shortcoming of the traditional C.P.I. model, due to failure to take account of changes in consumption patterns and product quality improvements. Be on the lookout for any wrong answers that sound like a standard definition for imagination. |
| A. wage
data for the last 25 years has been falsified. |
(A) is
Out of Scope because we’re never
told that
data was falsified. |
| B. the
pessimistic view of the economy indicated by the C.P.I. is overstated due to
underestimation of the significance of key variables. |
(B) matches closely with the prediction and is the
correct answer. |
| C. mathematical
models of the economy are less accurate than anecdotal reports. |
(C) is
Out of Scope because this passage never compares mathematical models to anecdotal reports
in terms of validity. |
| D. the
C.P.I. is a completely unreliable tool for explaining the economic climate. |
The C.P.I. certainly has some issues but is not the completely unreliable tool mentioned in (D)—this is Extreme. |