Happy to help. We're tasked with completing the argument. From the stimulus, we know that when industries rapidly apply new technology, people who possess the skills and knowledge to master it prosper, while many others lose their jobs.
However, the passage notes that firms that resist such technological innovation will eventually be superseded by those that do not, which means that all of their employees' jobs will be lost.
The argument then says that resisting the application of new technology will...
What will it do?
Prediction: We know from the stimulus that resistance to new technology is futile and will still lead to a loss of jobs eventually.
Let's look at the answers to see how they match to our prediction we've made just above.
Answer A is incorrect because it says that resisting the application of new technology in industry is less likely to dislocate workers than it is to create job security for them. However, we have evidence that it is MORE likely to dislocate workers, so this answer is wrong.
Answer B is incorrect because, as the stimulus notes, resisting will still affect all people, not only those who possess technical skills.
Answer C is correct; it says that resisting cannot prevent job loss in the long run, and we know this to be true from the stimulus ("but firms that resist technological innovations will eventually be superseded by those that do not"). This lines up well with the prediction we made above.
Answer D is incorrect because it does not eventually create more jobs than it destroys. It eventually destroys more jobs than it creates since the businesses lose all of their employees.
Answer E is incorrect because we have no support in the passage that resistance must take priority. In fact, if anything, we have support that resistance is a pointless pursuit.
Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any more questions!
