Critical Reasoning

mrigank_bhushan wrote:Hi experts,

i have a certain aspect to this that i thought is a line of critical thought. i may be completely out of line here, but i still would like someone to evaluate how what i think is not correct.

I was confused between option B and C. The reason being B gave me a more real world aspect tp this wherein, the even though the wages remained constant the unemployment increased, so as time goes by the net present value of money increases.

The colored statement is wrong. You are given in option B that:

(B) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant.

It does not mean that the cause of "increase in unemployment rate" is constant wages. It just means both have occurred together.

mrigank_bhushan wrote:Hence if someone is paid labour costa as according to previous years rates, in the real world it is as good as reduxing the minimum wage. Hence the argumwnt that wage reduction can help goes for a toss.

I am not sure what you mean here. But option B is correct for the following reason:

Conclusion says: Decrease X (minimum wage) will lead to halt in the increase of Y (unemployment)

Now, what if there is some Z (e.g. poor economy) which actually can increase Y?

Now, if Z is there, then you won't be sure whether Y will increase or not even when X is decreased. Basically, if the economy is on a negative growth, then even if you decrease the minimum wage, the unemployment may still increase.

Now, option B indicates towards one factor which may actually lead to increase in unemployment.

We are given that unemployment has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant. So, it indicates that there is some other factor (Z) which causes increase in unemployment.

Now, given that this factor is there, we can't be sure whether decreasing the minimum wage will surely halt the increase in unemployment.

mrigank_bhushan wrote: Heres what i thought of C. As employers were hiring more people in holidays, that kind of showed how purchase power of the employers for services was not the bottleneck. Because they can pay more, but they dont want to, maybe because the projects were drying out. Maybe the labour laws were not conducive to hiring best category labour etc. So whatwver maybe the issue, money wasnt.

I know its a long shot, but the reasonings above can still be valid cant they?

Regards

Probably an example might help here:

If I tell you that I can pay $10,000 for a car, does that mean that money is not a concern for me when I purchase stationery? Does that mean that I'll happily buy a pen even if it's price is increased from $10 to $20?

No. Right?

Just because employers often hire extra help during holiday and warm weather seasons, it doesn't mean that money is not a concern. May be they get a lot more customers during these seasons, therefore, they can afford more people during these seasons but not in other seasons. Also, it also leaves open the possibility that they could have hired even more people if the minimum wages had been lower (the concern of the argument).

Therefore, Option C does not impact the argument.

I hope it helps!

Thanks,
Chiranjeev