Current time:0:00Total duration:3:42
0 energy points
Reading: Social science — How-to Part 2
Reading
Video transcript
- Let's now see if we
can tackle the questions. The passage most strongly
suggests that researchers at the Martin Prosperity Institute share which assumption? We saw the writer, he works for the Martin Prosperity Institute. And he's trying to quantify
how much cost there is involved when people having to commute every minute of cost. Employees who work from home are are more valuable to their employers than employees that commute. No, he's not saying that. He's just saying, when
you commute, regardless how valuable you are to
employer, you're just wasting time, having stress, etcetera. Employees whose commutes are shortened, will use the time saved to
do additional, productive work for their employers. Ah, maybe. Arguably, they could have used that time to take a vacation,
have a break, de-stress. They don't say this directly. I mean this is interesting. Let's read the other choices. Employees can conduct business activities such as composing memos or joining conference calls while commutting. I didn't get any sense that
they want people to work while they're driving. Employees who have lengthy commutes tend to make more money than
employees that have shorter commutes. So they never made that argument. So out of all these, this one seems to be the best, Employees whose commutes are shortened will use their time saved
to do additional, productive work for their employers. And I'm a little bit on the fence of this because they quantified
the number of hours and they said if people work those hours, that would be the value to the economy. But they're not saying that
that would convert directly to additional productive work. It could be time for the
person to recharge, etcetera It didn't into a lot of
detail with what the person would do with that
time, it just quantified that time in terms of lost work time. But out of all of them,
I'll go with this one. As used in line 51,
intense most nearly means, Let's read line 51. The coming decades will
likely see more intense clustering of jobs,
innovations and productivity, and a smaller number of
bigger city and city regions. The clustering of jobs, they're talking about a higher concentration
of things happening. so, this is not talking about an emotional clustering of jobs, it's talking about a
concentrated clustering of jobs. They're not saying a
brilliant or determined clustering of jobs either. For these you can literally
just replace the word and see how it sounds. And see if it changes the
meaning of what they were trying to talk about. Alright. The next one. Which claim about traffic congestion is supported by the graph? A. New York city commuters spend less time annually delayed by
traffic congestions than the average for very large cities. No, that's not true, New
York spends more than the average for very large ciites. Los Angeles commuters
are delayed more hours annually than traffic congestion, than are commuters in Washington D.C. No, they are not, D.C. is
the top right over here. Commuters in Washington D.C. face greater delays annually due to traffic congestion than do commuters in New York City. Yep, we see that in
Washington D.C. has the most delays annually. So I would go with that. Commuters in Detroit
spend more time delayed annually by traffic
congestion than do commuters in Houston, Altanta, Chicago. Detroit's near the bottom
of at least this list. It actually has less delay
than Atlanta, Chicago and Houston.