Zollege is here for to help you!!
Need Counselling
GMAT logo

After the End of World War II, A Pervasive, But Unfortunately Fallacious GMAT Reading Comprehension

Overview es 2Overview en 2RegistrationExam PatternPreparation TipsPractice PaperResultCut offmock testNews
Sayantani Barman's profile photo

Sayantani Barman

Experta en el extranjero | Updated On - Feb 14, 2023

Reading Passage Question:

After the end of World War II, a pervasive, but unfortunately fallacious, economic perspective took hold. Based on the United States’ successful emergence from the Depression, the idea that war was good for an economy became fashionable. However, linking the United States economic recovery with its entry into World War II is a prime example of flawed economic thinking.

Supporters of the war benefits economy theory hold that a country at war is a country with a booming economy. Industry must produce weapons, supplies, food, and clothing for the troops. The increased production necessitates the hiring of more people, reducing unemployment. More employment means more money in the pockets of citizens, who are then likely to go out and spend that money, helping the retail sector of the economy. Retail shops experience an increase in business and may need to hire more workers, further reducing unemployment and adding to the economic momentum. While this scenario sounds good in theory, it does not accurately represent what truly happens in a war time economy.

In reality, the government can fund a war in a combination of three ways. It can raise taxes, cut spending on other areas, or increase the national debt. Each of these strategies has a negative impact on the economy. An increase in taxes takes money out of an individual’s hands, leading to a reduction in consumer spending. Clearly, there is no net benefit to the economy in that case. Cutting spending in other areas has its costs as well, even if they are not as obvious. Any reduction in government spending means the imposition of a greater burden on the benefactors of that government spending. Cutbacks in a particular program mean that the people who normally depend on that program now must spend more of their money to make up for the government cuts. This also takes money out of consumers’ hands and leaves the economy depressed. Of course, a government could go into debt during the war, but such a strategy simply means that at some point in the future, taxes must be increased or spending decreased. Plus, the interest on the debt must be paid as well.

‘After the end of World War II, a pervasive, but unfortunately fallacio’ is a GMAT reading comprehension passage with answers. Candidates need a strong knowledge of English GMAT reading comprehension.
This GMAT Reading Comprehension consists of 7 comprehension questions.
The GMAT Reading Comprehension questions are designed for the purpose of testing candidates’ abilities in understanding, analysing, and applying information or concepts. Candidates can actively prepare with the help of GMAT Reading Comprehension Practice Questions.

Questions and Solutions

  1. The “pervasive…economic perspective” mentioned in line 1 took hold because
  1. observers took the appearance of one phenomenon with another to indicate that one caused the other
  2. the U.S. would not have emerged from the Depression had it not entered World War II
  3. the booming economy during wartime created thousands of jobs in the U.S.
  4. most people are not trained to think in economic terms
  5. economists confused an event that was necessary for an outcome to occur with one that is merely sufficient to bring about that outcome

Answer: A
Explanation:
The sentence states that "the belief that war was good for an economy grew fashionable," making response A the most pertinent choice. This demonstrates how people assumed that because two phenomena appeared together, they must have been caused by each other. The rest are all unimportant.

  1. Which of the following situations best mirrors the effect that cutting spending in government programs has, as detailed in the passage?
  1. Government cutbacks on public works maintenance lead to a deterioration of roads, which creates more work for private construction firms.
  2. A decrease in the federal education budget causes certain schools to close, which forces families to send their children to schools that are farther away.
  3. A federal decrease in unemployment payments causes some individuals who would otherwise remain on unemployment to seek jobs.
  4. Government cuts in housing subsidies results in fewer houses being built.
  5. A reduction in the federal spending on food safety inspections leads to a rash of illnesses and an increase in the amount of money spent on medicine.

Answer: E
Explanation:
This is an apply-the-facts query. You must first read the passage to see what it says regarding spending reductions before comparing that information to one of the answers. The paragraph states that when a programme is cut, the people who typically rely on it must now spend more money to make up for the government reductions. This is matched by answer option E. Reduced food safety inspections cause sicknesses, which force consumers to spend money they otherwise wouldn't have to in order to make up for it. The passage does not support Choice A's assertion that private construction companies will profit from the budget cuts. Choice B comes close, but it omits the information that transporting the kids to a different school will cost additional money. Choice C also appears to highlight a potential advantage. Choice D claims that fewer homes are being built, but it doesn't explain how this results in individuals spending more money to make up for it.

  1. The passage implies which of the following about a government that funds a war by increasing the national debt?
  1. It is no worse off than it would be funding a war by cutting spending or increasing taxes.
  2. The initial costs it incurs are less than with the other two methods, but the future costs are greater.
  3. It must increase taxes in order to pay off the interest on the debt.
  4. If the government does not increase taxes or decrease spending, its economy will not recover.
  5. It receives a net benefit to the economy greater than it would achieve with either of the other two methods.

Answer: B
Explanation:
Choice C is too extreme because it's unclear whether or not the government "must" raise taxes. Spending may be cut, according to the passage. Because the author does not state that the economy "would not recover" unless certain measures are adopted, choice D makes an excessive and unfounded claim. Based on the information in the passage, choice E is erroneous because it is similar to choice A.

  1. The second paragraph of the passage performs which of the following functions?
  1. It describes the common economic benefits of a wartime economy.
  2. It provides the background information necessary to understand the information in the third paragraph.
  3. It explains what happened to the United States’ economy during World War II.
  4. It presents a possible objection to the author’s main thesis.
  5. It helps explain why individuals might hold the viewpoint presented in the first paragraph.

Answer: E
Explanation:
This is a question on logical structure. The second paragraph explains the rationale behind the notion that conflict is advantageous to the economy. Choice A is incorrect since the paragraph only addresses "theory" and not what actually occurs in a battle. Because the information is not "required" to comprehend the third paragraph, choice B is incorrect. Because the passage isn't even about the US economy, Choice C is inadequate. Because the author isn't articulating an issue, but rather what people think happens during war, Choice D doesn't make sense.

Suggested GMAT Reading Comprehension Questions

*The article might have information for the previous academic years, please refer the official website of the exam.

Ask your question