Directions: Read the passage/argument and answer the question that follows it.Many social scientists believe that affirmative action is a good way to improve the socio-economic status of disadvantaged groups in the society. Based on their recommendation, the Arizona Governor has decided to put in place a system whereby every public and private organization would be mandated to recruit a minimum of 10% of all new recruits from these segments of society.Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the social scientists argument?a)The workforce participation rate of these disadvantaged groups has consistently fallen over the past 50 years.b)The disposable incomes of disadvantaged groups have not shown any rise across the past 50 years of economic history.c)Ever since the policy of having a 10% quota in jobs for disadvantaged groups has been launched in Alabama, there has been a marked improvement in the legally declared incomes of such people.d)The public and private organizations across Arizona believe that the policy will achieve its goals.e)There is an inverse relationship between one`s urge for betterment in life and ease of getting a job.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

EduRev

All Courses

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > Directions: Read the passage/argument and ans...

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the social scientists' argument?

a)
The workforce participation rate of these disadvantaged groups has consistently fallen over the past 50 years.
b)
The disposable incomes of disadvantaged groups have not shown any rise across the past 50 years of economic history.
c)
Ever since the policy of having a 10% quota in jobs for disadvantaged groups has been launched in Alabama, there has been a marked improvement in the legally declared incomes of such people.
d)
The public and private organizations across Arizona believe that the policy will achieve its goals.
e)
There is an inverse relationship between one`s urge for betterment in life and ease of getting a job.

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Most Upvoted Answer

Directions: Read the passage/argument and answer the question that fol...

Strengthening the Argument for Affirmative Action
The argument for affirmative action, particularly the policy of mandating a 10% recruitment quota for disadvantaged groups, can be significantly strengthened by providing evidence of its positive impacts. Here’s how option 'C' supports this:
Evidence of Success in Similar Policies
- Impact of Quota in Alabama: The statement that "Ever since the policy of having a 10% quota in jobs for disadvantaged groups has been launched in Alabama, there has been a marked improvement in the legally declared incomes of such people" serves as concrete evidence of the effectiveness of affirmative action policies.
- Demonstration of Benefits: This evidence indicates that similar policies can lead to tangible benefits for disadvantaged groups, such as improved incomes, which directly correlates with the socio-economic upliftment that social scientists advocate for.
Connecting Policy to Outcomes
- Real-World Application: The success of the Alabama policy provides a model that can be replicated in Arizona, suggesting that the proposed 10% recruitment mandate could yield similar positive outcomes.
- Supporting the Argument: By showing a direct link between the implementation of recruitment quotas and improved socio-economic conditions, this evidence bolsters the argument that affirmative action is a viable solution for addressing disparities faced by disadvantaged groups.
In summary, option 'C' reinforces the social scientists' argument by presenting a real-world example of how affirmative action can lead to positive economic outcomes, thereby justifying the Arizona Governor's decision to implement such a policy.

Answered by Wizius Careers · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience.Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.For summarizing the passage, which of the following is most appropriate

View answer

Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions that follow.While sabbaticals are still rare inside of corporate America, their presence is increasing rapidly. According to a survey from the Society for Human Resource Management, the percentage of companies offering sabbaticals (both paid and unpai d) rose to nearly 17% of employers in 2017. That's a significant gain from 1977, when McDonald's instituted what was arguably the first corporate sabbatical program in the United States.Since the concept of sabbaticals is most popular in the academic arena, the majority of research done on their effect on employees has been conducted by studying professors. One notable study compared 129 university professors who took a sabbatical in a given term with 129 equally qualified colleagues who didn't. Both groups were surveyed before, during, and after the term to assess stress levels, psychological resources, and even overall life satisfaction. It's not surprising that the researchers found that those who took sabbaticals experienced, upon return, a decline in stress and an increase in psychological resources and overall well-being. What is surprising, however, is that those positive changes often remained long after the sabbatical takers returned to work.The bigger benefit to organizations, however, comes in unexpected ways. Providing sabbaticals or extended leave time to leaders can actually be a means to stress test the organizational chart and give aspiring leaders a chance to grow. In one study, researchers surveyed 61 leaders at five different non-profit organizations with sabbatical programs. Each organization had slightly different requirements, but all required at least three months off and discouraged executives from visiting the office during the sabbatical period.The researchers found that the majority of leaders surveyed said the time away allowed them the space to generate new ideas for innovating in the organization and helped them gain greater confidence in themselves as leaders. They also reported a better ability to collaborate with their board of directors, most likely because the planning and execution of the sabbatical provided a learning experience for everyone involved.At the very least, having people rotate out for an extended period of time allows organizations to stress test their organizational chart. Ideally, no team should be so dependent on any one person that productivity grinds to a halt during an extended vacation. And while it may look good on paper, the only way to know for sure is to test it. For instance, there are many unique vacation/sabbatical policies out there: The Motley Fool's approach, called "The Fool's Errand." Each month leadership of The Motley Fool draws a random name from the company roster and awards that person two weeks of paid time off with a catch: It must be taken in the next month.Whether it's a long-term sabbatical or a surprise vacation, the success of extended time off - for the organization - is an encouragement and a warning. The warning is that most organizations are probably not giving employees enough time away.Q. Whether it's a long-term sabbatical or a surprise vacation, the success of extended time off - for the organization - is an encouragement and a warning. The warning is that most organizations are probably not giving employees enough time away.It can be inferred that the author could have extended the last paragraph to include how many of the following statements? The encouragement is that extended time pays off. How seriously companies take this warning, is yet to be seen. Rewarding sabbatical to employees increases the productivity of the company. The pros of rewarding sabbatical to employees far outweigh the cons.

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavourably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitment will depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact finding authorities who used legitimate decision making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.

View answer

When people react to their experiences with particular authorities, those authorities and the organizations or institutions that they represent often benefit if the people involved begin with high levels of commitment to the organization or institution represented by the authorities. First, in his studies of people's attitudes toward political and legal institutions, Tyler found that attitudes after an experience with the institution were strongly affected by prior attitudes. Single experiences influence post experience loyalty but certainly do not overwhelm the relationship between pre-experience and post experience loyalty. Thus, the best predictor of loyalty after an experience is usually loyalty before that experience. Second, people with prior loyalty to the organization or institution judge their dealings with the organization's or institution's authorities to be fairer than do those with less prior loyalty, either because they are more fairly treated or because they interpret equivalent treatment as fairer.Although high levels of prior organizational or institutional commitment are generally beneficial to the organization or institution, under certain conditions high levels of prior commitment may actually sow the seeds of reduced commitment. When previously committed individuals feel that they were treated unfavorably or unfairly during some experience with the organization or institution, they may show an especially sharp decline in commitment. Two studies were designed to test this hypothesis, which, if confirmed, would suggest that organizational or institutional commitment has risks, as well as benefits. At least three psychological models offer predictions of how individuals' reactions may vary as a function of (1) their prior level of commitment and (2) the favorability of the encounter with the organization or institution. Favorability of the encounter is determined by the outcome of the encounter and the fairness or appropriateness of the procedures used to allocate outcomes during the encounter. First, the instrumental prediction is that because people are mainly concerned with receiving desired outcomes from their encounters with organizations, changes in their level of commitmentwill depend primarily on the favorability of the encounter. Second, the assimilation prediction is that individuals' prior attitudes predispose them to react in a way that is consistent with their prior attitudes.The third prediction, derived from the group-value model of justice, pertains to how people with high prior commitment will react when they feel that they have been treated unfavorably or unfairly during some encounter with the organization or institution. Fair treatment by the other party symbolizes to people that they are being dealt with in a dignified and respectful way, thereby bolstering their sense of self-identity and self-worth. However, people will become quite distressed and react quite negatively if they feel that they have been treated unfairly by the other party to the relationship. The group-value model suggests that people value the information they receive that helps them to define themselves and to view themselves favorably. According to the instrumental viewpoint, people are primarily concerned with the more material or tangible resources received from the relationship. Empirical support for the group-value model has implications for a variety of important issues, including the determinants of commitment, satisfaction, organizational citizenship, and rule following. Determinants of procedural fairness include structural or interpersonal factors. For example, structural determinants refer to such things as whether decisions were made by neutral, fact-finding authorities who used legitimate decision-making criteria. The primary purpose of the study was to examine the interactive effect of individuals (1) commitment to an organization or institution prior to some encounter and (2) perceptions of how fairly they were treated during the encounter, on the change in their level of commitment. A basic assumption of the group-value model is that people generally value their relationships with people, groups, organizations, and institutions and therefore value fair treatment from the other party to the relationship. Specifically, highly committed members should have especially negative reactions to feeling that they were treated unfairly, more so than (1) less-committed group members or (2) highly committed members who felt that they were fairly treated.The prediction that people will react especially negatively when they previously felt highly committed but felt that they were treated unfairly also is consistent with the literature on psychological contracts. Rousseau suggested that, over time, the members of work organizations develop feelings of entitlement, i.e., perceived obligations that their employers have toward them. Those who are highly committed to the organization believe that they are fulfilling their contract obligations. However, if the organization acted unfairly, then highly committed individuals are likely to believe that the organization did not live up to its end of the bargain.The hypothesis mentioned in the passage tests at least one of the following ideas.

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

CAT Mock Test Series 2025

Crash Course for CAT

Mock Test Series for SNAP

Mock Test Series for XAT

Top Courses for CAT

View all

Directions: Read the passage/argument and answer the question that follows it.Many social scientists believe that affirmative action is a good way to improve the socio-economic status of disadvantaged groups in the society. Based on their recommendation, the Arizona Governor has decided to put in place a system whereby every public and private organization would be mandated to recruit a minimum of 10% of all new recruits from these segments of society.Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the social scientists argument?a)The workforce participation rate of these disadvantaged groups has consistently fallen over the past 50 years.b)The disposable incomes of disadvantaged groups have not shown any rise across the past 50 years of economic history.c)Ever since the policy of having a 10% quota in jobs for disadvantaged groups has been launched in Alabama, there has been a marked improvement in the legally declared incomes of such people.d)The public and private organizations across Arizona believe that the policy will achieve its goals.e)There is an inverse relationship between one`s urge for betterment in life and ease of getting a job.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Directions: Read the passage/argument and answer the question that follows it.Many social scientists believe that affirmative action is a good way to improve the socio-economic status of disadvantaged groups in the society. Based on their recommendation, the Arizona Governor has decided to put in place a system whereby every public and private organization would be mandated to recruit a minimum of 10% of all new recruits from these segments of society.Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the social scientists argument?a)The workforce participation rate of these disadvantaged groups has consistently fallen over the past 50 years.b)The disposable incomes of disadvantaged groups have not shown any rise across the past 50 years of economic history.c)Ever since the policy of having a 10% quota in jobs for disadvantaged groups has been launched in Alabama, there has been a marked improvement in the legally declared incomes of such people.d)The public and private organizations across Arizona believe that the policy will achieve its goals.e)There is an inverse relationship between one`s urge for betterment in life and ease of getting a job.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2025 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about Directions: Read the passage/argument and answer the question that follows it.Many social scientists believe that affirmative action is a good way to improve the socio-economic status of disadvantaged groups in the society. Based on their recommendation, the Arizona Governor has decided to put in place a system whereby every public and private organization would be mandated to recruit a minimum of 10% of all new recruits from these segments of society.Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the social scientists argument?a)The workforce participation rate of these disadvantaged groups has consistently fallen over the past 50 years.b)The disposable incomes of disadvantaged groups have not shown any rise across the past 50 years of economic history.c)Ever since the policy of having a 10% quota in jobs for disadvantaged groups has been launched in Alabama, there has been a marked improvement in the legally declared incomes of such people.d)The public and private organizations across Arizona believe that the policy will achieve its goals.e)There is an inverse relationship between one`s urge for betterment in life and ease of getting a job.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Directions: Read the passage/argument and answer the question that follows it.Many social scientists believe that affirmative action is a good way to improve the socio-economic status of disadvantaged groups in the society. Based on their recommendation, the Arizona Governor has decided to put in place a system whereby every public and private organization would be mandated to recruit a minimum of 10% of all new recruits from these segments of society.Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the social scientists argument?a)The workforce participation rate of these disadvantaged groups has consistently fallen over the past 50 years.b)The disposable incomes of disadvantaged groups have not shown any rise across the past 50 years of economic history.c)Ever since the policy of having a 10% quota in jobs for disadvantaged groups has been launched in Alabama, there has been a marked improvement in the legally declared incomes of such people.d)The public and private organizations across Arizona believe that the policy will achieve its goals.e)There is an inverse relationship between one`s urge for betterment in life and ease of getting a job.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Directions: Read the passage/argument and answer the question that follows it.Many social scientists believe that affirmative action is a good way to improve the socio-economic status of disadvantaged groups in the society. Based on their recommendation, the Arizona Governor has decided to put in place a system whereby every public and private organization would be mandated to recruit a minimum of 10% of all new recruits from these segments of society.Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the social scientists argument?a)The workforce participation rate of these disadvantaged groups has consistently fallen over the past 50 years.b)The disposable incomes of disadvantaged groups have not shown any rise across the past 50 years of economic history.c)Ever since the policy of having a 10% quota in jobs for disadvantaged groups has been launched in Alabama, there has been a marked improvement in the legally declared incomes of such people.d)The public and private organizations across Arizona believe that the policy will achieve its goals.e)There is an inverse relationship between one`s urge for betterment in life and ease of getting a job.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Directions: Read the passage/argument and answer the question that follows it.Many social scientists believe that affirmative action is a good way to improve the socio-economic status of disadvantaged groups in the society. Based on their recommendation, the Arizona Governor has decided to put in place a system whereby every public and private organization would be mandated to recruit a minimum of 10% of all new recruits from these segments of society.Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the social scientists argument?a)The workforce participation rate of these disadvantaged groups has consistently fallen over the past 50 years.b)The disposable incomes of disadvantaged groups have not shown any rise across the past 50 years of economic history.c)Ever since the policy of having a 10% quota in jobs for disadvantaged groups has been launched in Alabama, there has been a marked improvement in the legally declared incomes of such people.d)The public and private organizations across Arizona believe that the policy will achieve its goals.e)There is an inverse relationship between one`s urge for betterment in life and ease of getting a job.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Directions: Read the passage/argument and answer the question that follows it.Many social scientists believe that affirmative action is a good way to improve the socio-economic status of disadvantaged groups in the society. Based on their recommendation, the Arizona Governor has decided to put in place a system whereby every public and private organization would be mandated to recruit a minimum of 10% of all new recruits from these segments of society.Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the social scientists argument?a)The workforce participation rate of these disadvantaged groups has consistently fallen over the past 50 years.b)The disposable incomes of disadvantaged groups have not shown any rise across the past 50 years of economic history.c)Ever since the policy of having a 10% quota in jobs for disadvantaged groups has been launched in Alabama, there has been a marked improvement in the legally declared incomes of such people.d)The public and private organizations across Arizona believe that the policy will achieve its goals.e)There is an inverse relationship between one`s urge for betterment in life and ease of getting a job.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Directions: Read the passage/argument and answer the question that follows it.Many social scientists believe that affirmative action is a good way to improve the socio-economic status of disadvantaged groups in the society. Based on their recommendation, the Arizona Governor has decided to put in place a system whereby every public and private organization would be mandated to recruit a minimum of 10% of all new recruits from these segments of society.Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the social scientists argument?a)The workforce participation rate of these disadvantaged groups has consistently fallen over the past 50 years.b)The disposable incomes of disadvantaged groups have not shown any rise across the past 50 years of economic history.c)Ever since the policy of having a 10% quota in jobs for disadvantaged groups has been launched in Alabama, there has been a marked improvement in the legally declared incomes of such people.d)The public and private organizations across Arizona believe that the policy will achieve its goals.e)There is an inverse relationship between one`s urge for betterment in life and ease of getting a job.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Directions: Read the passage/argument and answer the question that follows it.Many social scientists believe that affirmative action is a good way to improve the socio-economic status of disadvantaged groups in the society. Based on their recommendation, the Arizona Governor has decided to put in place a system whereby every public and private organization would be mandated to recruit a minimum of 10% of all new recruits from these segments of society.Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the social scientists argument?a)The workforce participation rate of these disadvantaged groups has consistently fallen over the past 50 years.b)The disposable incomes of disadvantaged groups have not shown any rise across the past 50 years of economic history.c)Ever since the policy of having a 10% quota in jobs for disadvantaged groups has been launched in Alabama, there has been a marked improvement in the legally declared incomes of such people.d)The public and private organizations across Arizona believe that the policy will achieve its goals.e)There is an inverse relationship between one`s urge for betterment in life and ease of getting a job.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Directions: Read the passage/argument and answer the question that follows it.Many social scientists believe that affirmative action is a good way to improve the socio-economic status of disadvantaged groups in the society. Based on their recommendation, the Arizona Governor has decided to put in place a system whereby every public and private organization would be mandated to recruit a minimum of 10% of all new recruits from these segments of society.Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the social scientists argument?a)The workforce participation rate of these disadvantaged groups has consistently fallen over the past 50 years.b)The disposable incomes of disadvantaged groups have not shown any rise across the past 50 years of economic history.c)Ever since the policy of having a 10% quota in jobs for disadvantaged groups has been launched in Alabama, there has been a marked improvement in the legally declared incomes of such people.d)The public and private organizations across Arizona believe that the policy will achieve its goals.e)There is an inverse relationship between one`s urge for betterment in life and ease of getting a job.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam