Q23 - Throughout European history famines

[lichenrachel]

The answer is D. Is it because the increased birth rate, even though might enhance the population to the prefamine level in the long run, would not compensate for the loss of population right after the famine?

Also, why isn't A correct? When the labor force is already diminished in half, the reduced mortality rate among able-bodied adults could at best prevent further loss of population, but it could not restore the population to pre-famine level. So how can A be a contributing explanation?

[bbirdwell]

The key concept here revolves around the diminished labor force.

Famines are generally followed by periods of rising wages. Why? Because when a labor force is diminished, workers are more valuable.

But not the Irish potato famine. Half the population disappeared, but there was no rise in wages.

We need to eliminate the choices most likely to help explain this, and choose the one LEAST likely to explain it.

(A) The mortality rate for able-bodied adults was reduced. This could mean that the labor force was not AS diminished as it might have otherwise been.

(B) Most of the ones who left were non-workers, and the ones who stayed were able-bodied workers. This definitely helps explain why workers' value did not increase.

(C) Workers were not needed as much. This explains.

(D) So there were a bunch of babies... This doesn't help us with the labor force issue. Babies aren't part of the labor force, so this does nothing to help explain.

(E) definitely explains.

(A) is not a full-on, complete, amazing explanation, but it could definitely help explain.
(D) doesn't come even close, and for definite reason.

See what I mean?

[nonameee]

As far as I know, children used to be a regular part of workforce around the world (including US) and, in fact, still are in some countries. So how come that high birth rates did not have an impact on the number of people in labor force?

I also chose (A) based on the same reasoning as that of lichenrachel.

Please explain.

[nonameee]

Here's my reasoning with (A) and (D)

We can conclude from the stimulus that in order to sustain the level of wages, the number of people in the workforce should remain at most the same. We know that famine reduced the workforce by half. In order to sustain previous levels of wages new people should join the labor force.

(A) From the stimulus we know that the population already dropped by half. Thanks to the reduction in mortality rate the number of people will not grow. So at best, the situation will remain the same (i.e., there will be less people than before the famine broke out).

(D) As far as I know, very young children used to be a regular part of workforce around the world (including US) and, in fact, still are in some countries. So how come that high birth rates did not have an impact on the number of people in labor force? Young children could have joined the workforce and thus helped to offset the decrease caused by famine.

Please explain.

Thank you.

[kylelitfin]

Here's my reasoning with (A) and (D)

We can conclude from the stimulus that in order to sustain the level of wages, the number of people in the workforce should remain at most the same. We know that famine reduced the workforce by half. In order to sustain previous levels of wages new people should join the labor force.

(A) From the stimulus we know that the population already dropped by half. Thanks to the reduction in mortality rate the number of people will not grow. So at best, the situation will remain the same (i.e., there will be less people than before the famine broke out).

(D) As far as I know, very young children used to be a regular part of workforce around the world (including US) and, in fact, still are in some countries. So how come that high birth rates did not have an impact on the number of people in labor force? Young children could have joined the workforce and thus helped to offset the decrease caused by famine.

Please explain.

Thank you.

I too had some initial problems with this question but I ultimately broke it down as follows:

(A): Strengthens the stimulus and the key portion of the answer choice that really solidifies this is the use of "able-bodied adults." This has been included purposefully to wrestle away any doubt between (A) and (D), even though (D) can be eliminated on it's own merits. If the mortality rate of "able-bodied adults" is able to be kept afloat ABOVE the rate pre-famine that is a 100% net gain in the work force. Sure, there is some wiggle room here: obviously we don't have any raw numbers so we can't say whether or not this breakthrough helps significantly, but we're not justifying here, just strengthening.

(B): This strengthens the stimulus because those who emigrated were part of a plan to rid the country of the elderly and feeble (not able-bodied adults).

(C): Obviously strengthens. This eliminates the necessity of manual labor because they have machines to come in and fill the gap.

(D): The key here is that the birth rate increases "during the decade following". Initially, I thought, 'Okay, if people got pregnant and the beginning of this decade they would be well into their teens in the following decade and that seems substantial." But wait, the birth-rate didn't rise until the FOLLOWING decade. Hmm... So the maximum age is 10 here. Sure, I suppose there is an argument to be made that child-labor was used... but I'm not very confident children of 10 years and younger were of much use, especially when you compare them to the "able-bodied adults" kept alive in answer choice (A).

(E): Strengthen. England is an evil mastermind who keeps the wages low for their own benefit.

Hopefully this is able to clear up some confusion. I was able to quickly narrow this down to (A) and (D) and then when I took a moment to re-read the choices the "able-bodied adults" really confirmed (A) as correct for me.

[seychelles1718]

Does A explain why wage didnt increase after famine because the mortality rate decreased to BELOW prefamine rate in the decade following the famine? If the mortality rate decreased to prefamine level ( not below), then it wouldnt explain why the wage did not increase?

Thanks!

[maryadkins]

Since we are told in the stimulus that people were also leaving Ireland, it's important in (A) that the mortality rate falls to below the pre-famine level. The fact that fewer people are dying than before leaves some room for people leaving, which means the population of workers (the labor force) could have remained roughly the same pre- and post-famine.

But in general, if the labor force had remained at the same level that would be fine, because the point is that there wasn't a significant rise in wages. For that to happen, the labor force could remain the same.