Final answer:
The change in unemployment rates from 4.6% to 5.9% between 2001 and 2002 is likely due to cyclical unemployment, which aligns with economic fluctuations. Changes in the natural rate of unemployment, by contrast, are structural and happen over a longer period. The statement referring to unemployment rates in 2006 is a typo and should be properly identified as a 'positive' statement if corrected.
Step-by-step explanation:
When analyzing the changes in the unemployment rate from 4.6% in July 2001 to 5.9% by June 2002, without in-depth study, one would likely conclude that this change is due to cyclical unemployment. The rapid shift suggests a response to economic downturns or fluctuations, which are characteristic of cyclical unemployment. In contrast, changes in the natural rate of unemployment occur more slowly over time, reflecting more structural adjustments in the labor market, such as technological changes or new government policies affecting labor.
In the context of the statement 'The unemployment rate in 2006 was higher than it was in 2006' which includes the options A. Positive B. Normative, the correct identification between these two would be 'positive', as it is reflective of factual data regarding unemployment rates. However, since the statement is self-contradictory, it cannot be factually accurate and is likely a typo. Normative statements involve subjective or opinion-based value judgments, which are not relevant to discussions of historical unemployment data.