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
Which of the following, if true, would most strongly support Keyssar’s findings as they are described by the author?
Boston, Massachusetts, and Quincy, Massachusetts, adjoining communities, had a higher rate of unemployment for working-class people in 1870 than in 1890
White-collar professionals such as attorneys had as much trouble as day laborers in maintaining a steady level of employment throughout the period 1870-1920
Working-class women living in Cambridge, Massachusetts, were more likely than working-class men living in Cambridge to be unemployed for some period of time during the year 1873
In the 1890’s, shoe-factory workers moved away in large numbers from Chelmsford, Massachusetts, where shoe factories were being replaced by other industries, to adjoining West Chelmsford, where the shoe industry flourished.
- Option 1: Compares unemployment rates across years but not between communities. This doesn't support varying unemployment impacts on adjacent areas, as described by Keyssar.
- Option 2: Contradicts Keyssar's finding that middle-class/white-collar workers were less likely to be unemployed compared to working-class laborers.
- Option 3: Highlights a gender difference in unemployment within the same location, but doesn't explore differences between adjoining communities.
- Option 4: Highlights movement between adjoining communities due to differences in unemployment rates, supporting Keyssar’s findings.
.
By: Munesh Kumari ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses