Text 1: "Economists who argue that automation invariably reduces net employment misread historical precedent. The mechanization of agriculture displaced millions of farm laborers in the nineteenth century, yet industrial employment absorbed those workers and expanded the labor market overall. Technological disruption is not a zero-sum subtraction."
Text 2: "Contemporary automation differs categorically from prior industrial transitions. Unlike mechanization, which replaced physical labor while creating demand for cognitive work, artificial intelligence targets precisely the cognitive tasks that absorbed displaced workers in earlier eras. The absorptive capacity that economists cite as reassurance no longer applies."
The author of Text 2 would most likely respond to the argument in Text 1 by claiming that the author of Text 1:
-
A
draws an analogy that fails to account for a structural difference between historical and contemporary technological change
-
B
overstates the speed at which agricultural mechanization displaced farm laborers in the nineteenth century
-
C
ignores the role that government policy played in facilitating industrial employment growth
-
D
correctly identifies the pattern of disruption but wrongly concludes that labor markets will not adjust