send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Type your modal answer and submitt for approval
Direction: Read the given passage carefully and answer the questions that follow. Certain words are printed in bold to help you locate them while answering some of the questions. In the 1800s it was the Luddites smashing weaving machines. These days retail staff worry about automatic checkouts. Sooner or later taxi drivers will be fretting over self-driving cars. The battle between man and machines goes back centuries. Are they taking our jobs? Or are they merely easing our workload? A study by economists at the consultancy Deloitte seeks to shed new light on the relationship between jobs and the rise of technology by trawling through census data for England and Wales going back to 1871. ____________________________ . Findings by Deloitte such as a fourfold rise in bar staff since the 1950s or a surge in the number of hairdressers this century suggest to the authors that technology has increased spending power, therefore creating new demand and new jobs. Their study, shortlisted for the Society of Business Economists’ Rybczynski prize, argues that the debate has been skewed towards the job-destroying effects of technological change, which are more easily observed than its creative aspects. “The dominant trend is of contracting employment in agriculture and manufacturing being more than offset by rapid growth in the caring, creative, technology and business services sectors,” they write. “Machines will take on more repetitive and laborious tasks but seem no closer to eliminating the need for human labour than at any time in the last 150 years.” The study reveals that in some sectors, technology has quite clearly cost jobs, but Stewart and his colleagues question whether they are really jobs we would want to hold on to. Technology directly substitutes human muscle power and, in so doing, raises productivity and shrinks employment. “Easy access to information and the accelerating pace of communication have revolutionised most knowledge-based industries,” say the authors. At the same time, rising incomes have raised demand for professional services. The Deloitte economists believe these rising incomes have allowed consumers to spend more on personal services, such as grooming. That in turn has driven employment of hairdressers.
Which of the following statement (s) is/are NOT TRUE with reference to the information provided in the passage?
I. Job contraction in manufacturing and agriculture sector has been more than the rise in technology and business services sectors.
II. The study in question is focussed at finding the reasons for the rise in the employment of hairdressers.
III. Technology is a poor substitute of muscle power and human brain.
Only I
Only II
Only III
Both II and III
All I, II and III
As per the given information in the passage, both II and III are false. Statement I is true as per the following lines “ "The dominant trend is of contracting employment in agriculture and manufacturing being more than offset by rapid growth in the caring, creative, technology and business services sectors" As per this line "Technology directly substitutes human muscle power " it is evident that statement III is false and forms the part of the answer. Due to this line, "Their study, shortlisted for the Society of Business Economists’ Rybczynski prize, argues that the debate has been skewed towards the job-destroying effects of technological change, which are more easily observed than its creative aspects", statement II is invalidated. It shows that the study was not about why employment rise is there for hairdressers but to find out what impact the technology is having on jobs.
By: Munesh Kumari ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses