• 5 Day FREE Trial
Study Smarter, Not Harder

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Trial & Practice Exam
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Get 300+ Practice Questions

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Veritas GMAT Class
Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Practice Test & Review
How would you score if you took the GMAT

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Magoosh
Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
Register now and save up to \$200

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

## OG CR:The difference in average annual

tagged by: NandishSS

This topic has 5 member replies
NandishSS Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
05 Jun 2015
Posted:
301 messages
Followed by:
1 members
3

#### OG CR:The difference in average annual

Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:07 am
The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have college degrees, compared with those who do not have such degrees, doubled between 1980 and 1990. Some analysts have hypothesized that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation described above?

A) During the 1980s a growing percentage of college graduates, unable to find jobs requiring a college degree, took unskilled jobs.
B) The average age of all employees increased slightly during the 1980s.
C) The unemployment rate changed very little throughout the 1980s.
D) From 1980 to 1990 the difference in average income between employees with advanced degrees and those with bachelorâ€™s degrees also increased.
E) During the 1980s there were some employees with no college degree who earned incomes comparable to the top incomes earned by employees with a college degree.

OA:A

OG 2017

Need free GMAT or MBA advice from an expert? Register for Beat The GMAT now and post your question in these forums!
rsarashi Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
24 Dec 2016
Posted:
186 messages
Followed by:
2 members
5
Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:44 pm
Quote:
E is a detail which doesn't tell us whether the demand for graduates caused the income gap to increase..

In fact it's just a part of the entire population of the people with no college degree managed to earn more than graduates.. but the premise clearly mentions that on aggregate the later group has higher income than the former.

E is just a different interpretation of the premise, not impacting the conclusion
Hi Sun Light ,

It is that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

E says employees with no college degree earned more income compare with the employees with college degree.

So isn't undermines the conclusion?

Also can we eliminate option E, because of uses of SOME?

Sun Light Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
12 Jul 2015
Posted:
48 messages
4
Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:56 am
rsarashi wrote:
Quote:
E is a detail which doesn't tell us whether the demand for graduates caused the income gap to increase..

In fact it's just a part of the entire population of the people with no college degree managed to earn more than graduates.. but the premise clearly mentions that on aggregate the later group has higher income than the former.

E is just a different interpretation of the premise, not impacting the conclusion
Hi Sun Light ,

It is that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

E says employees with no college degree earned more income compare with the employees with college degree.

So isn't undermines the conclusion?

Also can we eliminate option E, because of uses of SOME?

Hi,

Premise : the gap between income of graduate studies and non graduates doubled..

Conclusion : the increased demand for graduates did this..

Now we can undermine this by proving tht the demand for graduates was not tht high, this is proven by the correct option.

The worst with E is that it is to some degree going against the premise by saying that some of non graduates earned more than graduates... It is gng against the premise and not the conclusion..

Also, some means anything greater than 0.. it can mean all too..

rsarashi Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
24 Dec 2016
Posted:
186 messages
Followed by:
2 members
5
Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:44 pm
Quote:
E is a detail which doesn't tell us whether the demand for graduates caused the income gap to increase..

In fact it's just a part of the entire population of the people with no college degree managed to earn more than graduates.. but the premise clearly mentions that on aggregate the later group has higher income than the former.

E is just a different interpretation of the premise, not impacting the conclusion
Hi Sun Light ,

It is that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

E says employees with no college degree earned more income compare with the employees with college degree.

So isn't undermines the conclusion?

Also can we eliminate option E, because of uses of SOME?

Sun Light Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
12 Jul 2015
Posted:
48 messages
4
Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:56 am
rsarashi wrote:
Quote:
E is a detail which doesn't tell us whether the demand for graduates caused the income gap to increase..

In fact it's just a part of the entire population of the people with no college degree managed to earn more than graduates.. but the premise clearly mentions that on aggregate the later group has higher income than the former.

E is just a different interpretation of the premise, not impacting the conclusion
Hi Sun Light ,

It is that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

E says employees with no college degree earned more income compare with the employees with college degree.

So isn't undermines the conclusion?

Also can we eliminate option E, because of uses of SOME?

Hi,

Premise : the gap between income of graduate studies and non graduates doubled..

Conclusion : the increased demand for graduates did this..

Now we can undermine this by proving tht the demand for graduates was not tht high, this is proven by the correct option.

The worst with E is that it is to some degree going against the premise by saying that some of non graduates earned more than graduates... It is gng against the premise and not the conclusion..

Also, some means anything greater than 0.. it can mean all too..

Sun Light Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Joined
12 Jul 2015
Posted:
48 messages
4
Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:24 pm
rsarashi wrote:
Hi Experts ,

Please explain why E is wrong?
E is a detail which doesn't tell us whether the demand for graduates caused the income gap to increase..

In fact it's just a part of the entire population of the people with no college degree managed to earn more than graduates.. but the premise clearly mentions that on aggregate the later group has higher income than the former.

E is just a different interpretation of the premise, not impacting the conclusion

Thanked by: rsarashi

### Best Conversation Starters

1 lheiannie07 112 topics
2 swerve 64 topics
3 LUANDATO 64 topics
4 ardz24 61 topics
5 AAPL 57 topics
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

### Most Active Experts

1 Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

227 posts
2 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

176 posts
3 Jeff@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

168 posts
4 Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

EMPOWERgmat

138 posts
5 GMATGuruNY

The Princeton Review Teacher

129 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts