Citing the fact that the real gross domestic product (GDP) per capita was higher in 1997 than ever before, some journalists have argued that the United States economy performed ideally in 1997. However, the real GDP is almost always higher than ever before; it falls only during recessions. One point these journalists overlooked is that in 1997, as in the twenty-four years immediately preceding it, the real GDP per capita grew nearly one-half percent a year more slowly than it had on average between 1873 and 1973. Were the 1997 economy as robust as claimed, the growth rate of real GDP per capita in 1997 would have surpassed the average growth rate of real GDP per capita between 1873 and 1973 because over fifty percent of the population worked for wages in 1997 whereas only forty percent worked for wages between 1873 and 1973. If the growth rate of labor productivity (output per hour of goods and services) in 1997 had equaled its average growth rate between 1873 and 1973 of more than two percent, then, given the proportionately larger workforce that existed in 1997, real GDP per capita in 1997 would have been higher than it actually was, since output is a major factor in GDP. However, because labor productivity grew by only one percent in 1997, real GDP per capita grew more slowly in 1997 than it had on average between 1873 and 1973.
It can be inferred from the passage that which of the following is the reason that the author faults the journalists referred to in highlight text?
One point these journalists overlooked is that in 1997, as in the twenty-four years immediately preceding it, the real GDP per capita grew nearly one-half percent a year more slowly than it had on average between 1873 and 1973.选E
A.author和journalist的数据没错，只是理解数据的方式错了。所以不选A
B.GDP growth是作者概念，而非记者的
C.labor productivity也是作者的
D.原文讨论的不是GDP增量，而是GDP growth的增量，无关
E.比较general的概括了问题，指出了作者指责记者想法的大体方向。记者没有考虑历史因素，所以他们以为增长了就很了不起（历史上本来就应该增长）。记者没有考虑历史因素，没有考虑之前的增量更快。
加入收藏
在线答疑
