• EMPOWERgmat Slider
    1 Hour Free
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    EMPOWERgmat Slider
  • Economist Test Prep
    Free Trial & Practice Exam
    BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Economist Test Prep
  • Varsity Tutors
    Award-winning private GMAT tutoring
    Register now and save up to $200

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Varsity Tutors
  • Kaplan Test Prep
    Free Practice Test & Review
    How would you score if you took the GMAT

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Kaplan Test Prep
  • Magoosh
    Magoosh
    Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Magoosh
  • Target Test Prep
    5-Day Free Trial
    5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Target Test Prep
  • e-gmat Exclusive Offer
    Get 300+ Practice Questions
    25 Video lessons and 6 Webinars for FREE

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    e-gmat Exclusive Offer
  • PrepScholar GMAT
    5 Day FREE Trial
    Study Smarter, Not Harder

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    PrepScholar GMAT
  • Veritas Prep
    Free Veritas GMAT Class
    Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

    Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

    MORE DETAILS
    Veritas Prep

OG CR:The difference in average annual

This topic has 5 member replies

Top Member

OG CR:The difference in average annual

Post Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:07 am
Elapsed Time: 00:00
  • Lap #[LAPCOUNT] ([LAPTIME])
    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 bachelor’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!
    fiza gupta Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
    Joined
    31 Jul 2016
    Posted:
    216 messages
    Followed by:
    6 members
    Thanked:
    31 times
    Target GMAT Score:
    750+
    Post Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:06 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?

    fact1) between 1980 and 1990, the avg annual income in favor of employees having college degrees doubled
    Reason: increased competition between employers for employees

    Weaken the explanation
    we have to provide other explanation which can tell the real cause of the situation.


    A) During the 1980s a growing percentage of college graduates, unable to find jobs requiring a college degree, took unskilled jobs.
    taking unskilled jobs means less pay
    example in 1980 suppose there are 100 employees 50% worked for unskilled jobs
    and in 1990 suppose 20%
    Skilled pay : 100
    unskilled pay: 50

    1980 avg income : (100)(50)/50 = 100
    1990 abg income : (100)(80)/50 = 160

    so its not the competition but the higher percentage of people working for skilled jobs.

    B) The average age of all employees increased slightly during the 1980s.
    for me its a mild weakener because increasing the age we are increasing the range or number of the college degrees employees.

    C) The unemployment rate changed very little throughout the 1980s.
    OFS

    D) From 1980 to 1990 the difference in average income between employees with advanced degrees and those with bachelor’s degrees also increased.
    OFS

    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.
    OFS

    Thanks
    Fiza Gupta

    _________________
    Fiza Gupta

    Thanked by: Shameilia

    Top Member

    Post Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:10 am
    Hi Experts ,

    Please explain why E is wrong?

    Sun Light Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    12 Jul 2015
    Posted:
    48 messages
    Thanked:
    4 times
    Post 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

    Top Member

    Post 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 ,

    Thanks for your reply.

    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?

    Please explain.

    Sun Light Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts Default Avatar
    Joined
    12 Jul 2015
    Posted:
    48 messages
    Thanked:
    4 times
    Post 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 ,

    Thanks for your reply.

    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?

    Please explain.
    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..

    Best Conversation Starters

    1 Vincen 180 topics
    2 lheiannie07 61 topics
    3 Roland2rule 61 topics
    4 ardz24 40 topics
    5 VJesus12 14 topics
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Members...

    Most Active Experts

    1 image description Brent@GMATPrepNow

    GMAT Prep Now Teacher

    160 posts
    2 image description Rich.C@EMPOWERgma...

    EMPOWERgmat

    102 posts
    3 image description GMATGuruNY

    The Princeton Review Teacher

    99 posts
    4 image description Jay@ManhattanReview

    Manhattan Review

    86 posts
    5 image description Matt@VeritasPrep

    Veritas Prep

    80 posts
    See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts