3. It can be inferred that the author of the passage would probably agree with which of the following statements about France's 1998 decision to implement a 35-hour workweek?
Answer: C
The decision was not made primarily with the view toward taking full advantage of all the effects that a workweek reduction can have.
The author suggests that while the intention behind France's 1998 decision to implement a 35-hour workweek aimed to reduce unemployment, it did not fully consider the broader benefits of workweek reductions as explained by the efficiency-wage theory.
A) The decision was unusual among workweek reductions in that it was designed primarily to ameliorate unemployment.
This option is incorrect because the passage indicates that many workweek reductions, including France's, are typically aimed at addressing unemployment. Therefore, the decision was not unusual in its primary objective.
B) While the decision was motivated by a worthy objective, that objective is an extremely difficult one to realize.
This statement does not align with the author's perspective. The passage highlights that the objective of reducing unemployment is worthy but does not emphasize the difficulty of achieving it, focusing instead on the potential benefits of workweek reductions that were overlooked.
C) The decision was not made primarily with the view toward taking full advantage of all the effects that a workweek reduction can have.
This option is correct as it reflects the author's argument that the efficiency-wage theory presents additional advantages of reduced workweeks that were not adequately considered in France's decision.
D) The rationale underlying the decision reflects mistaken assumptions about how workers typically respond to workweek reductions.
While this option hints at an underlying critique, it does not directly capture the author's main point about the lack of consideration for the broader productivity benefits of a reduced workweek. The passage does not explicitly state that the assumptions were mistaken.
E) The decision was based on an overestimation of the dangers of unemployment.
This option is incorrect because the passage does not suggest that the dangers of unemployment were overestimated. Instead, it suggests that the decision was more focused on unemployment without utilizing the full spectrum of advantages that a reduced workweek could offer.
Conclusion
The correct answer, option C, effectively captures the author's critique of the 35-hour workweek decision, emphasizing that it failed to account for the comprehensive productivity benefits as outlined by the efficiency-wage theory. Other options either misinterpret the author's viewpoint or do not address the central argument presented in the passage regarding the broader implications of workweek reductions.