Q27

[skapur777]

I was between C and D here. I luckily picked D but upon reviewing it and not looking at the answer I picked C. Is D correct because it shows a 'changing state of the economy'? And since the continuous theory is all about slowly evolving historical forces and long-term trends, that this change is the reason why some conditions got better?

And thus D is the answer. C address people becoming more economically stable yet does not say it is because of some evolving historical/economic/social force.

Here's a general question: does the continuous change theory apply to all things that result from slowly evolving or changing forces that are not legislation-based? or just that slowly evolving situations helped ECONOMIC situations exclusively?

If that is the case, I am confused why D is correct because it seems to get it backwards: housing shortage is remedied BECAUSE of the economy...and the economy improving isn't the result instead.

[theaether]

The gradually improving economy helps the housing shortage problem, just like in the passage they argue that the gradually improving education system helps the economic disparity problem. So it's very parallel.

(C) is incorrect because the private contractors are receiving "tax incentives," and that's something that's government related, and not a gradually changing big picture. Giving a tax incentive is like a really "sudden" change, if you get what I mean.

[redcobra21]

Can someone explain why answer (A) is incorrect?

Paragraph 2, which outlines the "continuous change" hypothesis, talks about the evolution of historical forces like the "long-term trends in education that improved segregated schools for black students during the 1940s etc." But this suggests to me that the "continuous change" hypothesis is still nevertheless heavily contingent on changes in government policy. After the all, the passage goes on to state that if the "quality of black schools improved," this implies that African Americans were becoming more educated which in turn means that they would have greater earning potential. But the change in the quality of schools could only have occurred because of some change in federal policy (that happened in the context of a change in attitude).

So to that end, I'm not really sure about (D) because it focuses on private investors and does not mention some kind of a change in government policy that would have paralleled how the quality of black schools had improved.

Am I missing something? Thanks in advance!