Hi Skamal7 and Vikas,
Thank you for the appreciation.
@Skamal7: You have cited a very relevant question here. Thank you.
As I look at your analysis, I can see that there are some gaps in the understanding. Let's try to understand these.
Firstly, 'would' does not indicate that the event happened in the past. "Removal of tariffs" has not happened; it may happen in the future. Refer to this page for different uses of "would": http://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/l ... -use-would
In the present context, the use of "would" is the third kind of use of "would" (conditional sentences) as described on this page.
Now, with the understanding that we are talking about a future event, not a past event, we are also clear that even if we replace "would" by "will", it will not make a difference.
However, then, why is option E the correct choice?
The answer is not that it provides an alternate cause. The answer is that it says that the current scenario is leading to urban unemployment and by doing this, it weakens the conclusion that the changed scenario (with tariffs removed) will lead to increased urban unemployment.
In terms of X and Y, the conclusion says that X will lead to Y (X: removal of tariffs, Y: urban unemployment).Option E weakens this by indicating that by not doing anything (i.e. with the status quo of high tariffs), we'll have more urban employment. This indicates that X will probably lead to reduction in Y, than increase in Y.
(Here, Y is not an event which will happen or not happen. It is a continuous figure which may increase or decrease).
Now, suppose, we were given an alternate cause/route of increasing urban unemployment:
A lack of funds available for training the unemployed youth in the urban areas is leading to their continued unemployment.
This option provides an alternate way for unemployment in urban areas i.e. lack of funds for training. Would this weaken the argument?
The answer is No. This is what the article tells.
The important point is to understand option E. It does not provide an alternate cause; it talks of the current scenario and suggests that X will possibly lead to reduction in Y, than an increase in Y.
Does this help?
Thanks![:)]( "Smile")
Chiranjeev
Thank you for the appreciation.
@Skamal7: You have cited a very relevant question here. Thank you.
As I look at your analysis, I can see that there are some gaps in the understanding. Let's try to understand these.
Firstly, 'would' does not indicate that the event happened in the past. "Removal of tariffs" has not happened; it may happen in the future. Refer to this page for different uses of "would": http://www.ecenglish.com/learnenglish/l ... -use-would
In the present context, the use of "would" is the third kind of use of "would" (conditional sentences) as described on this page.
Now, with the understanding that we are talking about a future event, not a past event, we are also clear that even if we replace "would" by "will", it will not make a difference.
However, then, why is option E the correct choice?
The answer is not that it provides an alternate cause. The answer is that it says that the current scenario is leading to urban unemployment and by doing this, it weakens the conclusion that the changed scenario (with tariffs removed) will lead to increased urban unemployment.
In terms of X and Y, the conclusion says that X will lead to Y (X: removal of tariffs, Y: urban unemployment).Option E weakens this by indicating that by not doing anything (i.e. with the status quo of high tariffs), we'll have more urban employment. This indicates that X will probably lead to reduction in Y, than increase in Y.
(Here, Y is not an event which will happen or not happen. It is a continuous figure which may increase or decrease).
Now, suppose, we were given an alternate cause/route of increasing urban unemployment:
A lack of funds available for training the unemployed youth in the urban areas is leading to their continued unemployment.
This option provides an alternate way for unemployment in urban areas i.e. lack of funds for training. Would this weaken the argument?
The answer is No. This is what the article tells.
The important point is to understand option E. It does not provide an alternate cause; it talks of the current scenario and suggests that X will possibly lead to reduction in Y, than an increase in Y.
Does this help?
Thanks
Chiranjeev