ChicaRosa wrote:I understand why B is correct but is A wrong because the article never mentions anything about the steady rate of finding employment in the North between 1915-1960?
I think that definitely plays a part in why (A) wouldn't really support the author's analysis of the Great Migration. However, what if it were actually true? Well, the author analyzes The Great Migration two different ways: 1. What started it. 2. Why it continued, and even accelerated past 1960--the recognized end when the income gap between the North and South narrowed sufficiently.
(A) being true doesn't have an impact on the author's analysis of what started the Great Migration / why it continued officially to 1960. Maybe the test makers were trying to trick test takers into thinking that the increased time it took to find employment in the North contributed to the shrinking of the North-South income gap. But this is a stretch as we can't assume (A) would impact the income gap this way. Maybe, despite growing steadily, the average time to find a job in the North was still very short. It may serve as another interesting fact about the Great Migration, but it doesn't support any analysis specifically.
(A) being true doesn't seem to have an impact on what happened after
1960. It may even be claimed that (A) would weaken the later claim that the information provided by early migrants helped motivate new Southerners to migrate even when the income gap had shrunk (if they provided information that it was taking a long time to find employment, new migrants would be less motivated to do so, and we know they continued to migrate). This may be a stretch, because we still wouldn't know if (A) applied to the decades afterward AND even if it had, perhaps the time it took to find employment still wasn't very long.
At least that's my take on (A).