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
Read the passage below and answer the following questions. Since the early 1970’s, historians have begun to devote serious attention to the working class in the United States. Yet while we now have studies of working-class communities and culture, we know remarkably little of work-lessness. When historians have paid any attention at all to unemployment, they have focused on the Great Depression of the 1930’s. The narrowness of this perspective ignores the pervasive recessions and joblessness of the previous decades, as Alexander Keyssar shows in his recent book. Examining the period 1870-1920, Keyssar concentrates on Massachusetts, where the historical materials are particularly rich, and the findings applicable to other industrial areas. The unemployment rates that Keyssar calculates appear to be relatively modest, at least by Great Depression standards: during the worst years, in the 1870’s and 1890’s, unemployment was around 15 percent. Yet Keyssar rightly understands that a better way to measure the impact of unemployment is to calculate unemployment frequencies—measuring the percentage of workers who experience any unemployment in the course of a year. Given this perspective, joblessness looms much larger. Keyssar also scrutinizes unemployment patterns according to skill level, ethnicity, race, age, class, and gender. He finds that rates of joblessness differed primarily according to class: those in middle-class and white-collar occupations were far less likely to be unemployed. Yet the impact of unemployment on a specific class was not always the same. Even when dependent on the same trade, adjoining communities could have dramatically different unemployment rates. Keyssar uses these differential rates to help explain a phenomenon that has puzzled historians—the startlingly high rate of geographical mobility in the nineteenth-century United States. But mobility was not the dominant working-class strategy for coping with unemployment, nor was assistance from private charities or state agencies. Self-help and the help of kin got most workers through jobless spells. While Keyssar might have spent more time developing the implications of his findings on joblessness for contemporary public policy, his study, in its thorough research and creative use of quantitative and qualitative evidence, is a model of historical analysis
The passage suggests that before the early 1970’s, which of the following was true of the study by historians of the working class in the United States?
The study was infrequent or superficial, or both.
The study was repeatedly criticized for its allegedly narrow focus.
The study relied more on qualitative than quantitative evidence.
The study focused more on the working-class community than on working-class culture.
- Option 1: The passage indicates that serious attention to the working class began only in the early 1970s. Before that, the study of the working class was likely infrequent or superficial. This aligns with the passage's suggestion.
- Option 2: The passage does not mention that the study was criticized for being narrow before historians focused on the working class.
- Option 3: The passage doesn't specify whether previous studies relied more on qualitative or quantitative evidence; it focuses on the attention level rather than methodology.
- Option 4: While the passage mentions studies of working-class communities and culture, it criticizes the lack of focus on unemployment, not specifying if community or culture was more emphasized.
By: Munesh Kumari ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses