cumulonimbus wrote:
Zarrolou wrote:
W: the rapid rise in the rate of unemployment is a serious economic problem; it will undoubtedly cost the majority party votes in the coming elections.
Z: I disagree. Statistics for the past 40 years show that there is no significant relationship between the prevailing level of employment and political gains or losses by the party that happens to be in the majority at election time.
W and Z do not talk about the same thing: W cites the rise of the level of unemployment, but Z replies by citing the level of employment overall.
W cites a trend, W cites an overall number not related to a rise/fall of the level itself => they are talking about two different things.
D. Z's statistics focus on level of unemployment, rather than direction of change
is correct
Z: I disagree. Statistics for the past 40 years show that there is no significant relationship between the prevailing level of employment and political gains or losses by the party that happens to be in the majority at election time.
W and Z do not talk about the same thing: W cites the rise of the level of unemployment, but Z replies by citing the level of employment overall.
W cites a trend, W cites an overall number not related to a rise/fall of the level itself => they are talking about two different things.
D. Z's statistics focus on level of unemployment, rather than direction of change
is correct
Hi,
What does "direction of change mean" ?
hi,
actually it means:
Z's statistics focus on level of unemployment, rather than direction of change in unemployment.
W==>He is focussing on rapid RISE (CHANGE ) in employment.
Z==>He is focussing on on current level of unemployment and not the CHANGE (RISE)IN EMPLOYMENT.
hope it helps