weakening argument

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 50
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:28 am
Followed by:1 members

weakening argument

by jsasipriya » Thu Jul 29, 2010 3:40 pm
In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of
the editorial?

A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.
B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.
C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.
D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.
E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.
OA C

Can someone explain the logic behind this answer choice?

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 77
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:55 am
Thanked: 2 times
GMAT Score:700

by pharmxanthan » Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:34 pm
I think that if one is currently employed with wage X with a company and leaves his present job to join another company, his new wage will be more than X. So there lies a possibility that with every job switch, he will have an increase in wage.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:54 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:3 members

by outreach » Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:41 pm
"To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance" .... "the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed"

C states people who are employed and look for a new job tend can incirease their income rather than being unempoyed.
for instance once you get enough experience you can try for another job
-------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
General blog
https://amarnaik.wordpress.com
MBA blog
https://amarrnaik.blocked/

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:59 am
I didn't understand the passage, can somebody explain it in detail

What is supplement and what is gainfully employed????
jsasipriya wrote:
In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of
the editorial?

A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.
B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.
C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.
D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.
E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.
OA C

Can someone explain the logic behind this answer choice?
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1172
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:20 pm
Thanked: 74 times
Followed by:4 members

by uwhusky » Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:08 am
Supplement in this context: The government gives people without jobs $200 per week to help pay for food/shelter and so forth.

Gainfully employed really just means having a decent job that pays.
Yep.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 3:46 am
Thanked: 27 times
GMAT Score:570

by reply2spg » Fri Jul 30, 2010 8:21 am
thanks.....

In that case how C weakens the passage?

C talks about employeed ppl and passage talks abt unemployed ppl
uwhusky wrote:Supplement in this context: The government gives people without jobs $200 per week to help pay for food/shelter and so forth.

Gainfully employed really just means having a decent job that pays.
Sudhanshu
(have lot of things to learn from all of you)

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1031
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 1:23 pm
Location: Malibu, CA
Thanked: 716 times
Followed by:255 members
GMAT Score:750

by Brian@VeritasPrep » Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:10 pm
Good question, reply2spg:

One important thing to note about Weaken questions is that the correct answer can either:

-Directly refute the conclusion
-Demonstrate that the premises can be true but that there is an alternate explanation other than the conclusion

Here, choice C provides that alternate explanation to the idea that "there is no incentive for people to select these jobs". The incentive is that, once they've worked at these jobs, they have a much higher chance of landing a better-paying job. Sure, they won't benefit immediately with a higher pay rate, but there is another benefit that provides that incentive.

I'd fixate in this case on the word "no" in "...no incentive". That's a pretty aggressive statement. If we can find just one incentive, that overrules "no incentive", and choice C provides just that (however indirect) incentive.
Brian Galvin
GMAT Instructor
Chief Academic Officer
Veritas Prep

Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More.

Legendary Member
Posts: 995
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:56 pm
Thanked: 31 times
Followed by:1 members

by paes » Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:37 pm
Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Good question, reply2spg:

One important thing to note about Weaken questions is that the correct answer can either:

-Directly refute the conclusion
-Demonstrate that the premises can be true but that there is an alternate explanation other than the conclusion

Here, choice C provides that alternate explanation to the idea that "there is no incentive for people to select these jobs". The incentive is that, once they've worked at these jobs, they have a much higher chance of landing a better-paying job. Sure, they won't benefit immediately with a higher pay rate, but there is another benefit that provides that incentive.

I'd fixate in this case on the word "no" in "...no incentive". That's a pretty aggressive statement. If we can find just one incentive, that overrules "no incentive", and choice C provides just that (however indirect) incentive.
Brian,
In C, don't you think that we are assuming to much which is generally not allowed in GMAT.
The statement is saying only about the people who are employed, I don't think that we should assume : unemployed people will get the low paying job in the hope that they will get a better job later.

instead E is looking a better option.
People sometime accepts the job because they enjoy it.
So we have some other incentive for the job here : No extra assumption.
What's wrong here ? please explain.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:39 am
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by pnk » Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:25 pm
Brian@VeritasPrep wrote:Good question, reply2spg:

One important thing to note about Weaken questions is that the correct answer can either:

-Directly refute the conclusion
-Demonstrate that the premises can be true but that there is an alternate explanation other than the conclusion

Here, choice C provides that alternate explanation to the idea that "there is no incentive for people to select these jobs". The incentive is that, once they've worked at these jobs, they have a much higher chance of landing a better-paying job. Sure, they won't benefit immediately with a higher pay rate, but there is another benefit that provides that incentive.

I'd fixate in this case on the word "no" in "...no incentive". That's a pretty aggressive statement. If we can find just one incentive, that overrules "no incentive", and choice C provides just that (however indirect) incentive.
Brain,

A also gives indication about 'kind of incentives' unemployed people get in terms of 'no taxes' - This should also weaken the argument. Pls help

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 39
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 5:17 am

by manishankar » Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:13 pm
I am not sure if i am answering your question, but the fnal conclusion says
Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Now from the options given in the question, only option C shows some kind of incentive for employess who draw lesser salary and require government's intervention in the form of suplementing their income . These employees get a higher pay as compared to unemployed group when they shift jobs.

I hope this answers your confusion

Regards,
Mani

Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 3:47 am
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:2 members

by bonetlobo » Sat Mar 21, 2015 7:13 am
What the editorial says is:

Suppose government assistance for unemployed adults is $10/hour

Let's take an unemployed adult.

Now, the new proposal is: If this unemployed adult accepts a job that pays less than government assistance (say this unemployed adult accepts a job that pays $8/hour), then the government would contribute $2/hour, so that this person's total income is $10/hour.

If we really look at it, for this unemployed adult,
i) If he doesn't work at all, then he gets $10/hour
ii) If he works, then also he gets $10/hour ($8/hour from his employer + $2/hour from Government)

So, if there is no difference in this person's income whether he works or does not work, the argument concludes that this person has no incentive to work.

We have to weaken this conclusion.

This is what C does. It says that this person, if he is working, is more likely to get a higher-paying job (say $12/hour) than if he is not working. That being the case, there is obviously an incentive for this currently unemployed person to take up even a low paying job right now, because taking up a current low paying job will basically brighten his future prospects (of getting a high paying job).

User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:25 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

by sidchilling » Sun Nov 15, 2015 5:59 am
bonetlobo wrote:What the editorial says is:

Suppose government assistance for unemployed adults is $10/hour

Let's take an unemployed adult.

Now, the new proposal is: If this unemployed adult accepts a job that pays less than government assistance (say this unemployed adult accepts a job that pays $8/hour), then the government would contribute $2/hour, so that this person's total income is $10/hour.

If we really look at it, for this unemployed adult,
i) If he doesn't work at all, then he gets $10/hour
ii) If he works, then also he gets $10/hour ($8/hour from his employer + $2/hour from Government)

So, if there is no difference in this person's income whether he works or does not work, the argument concludes that this person has no incentive to work.

We have to weaken this conclusion.

This is what C does. It says that this person, if he is working, is more likely to get a higher-paying job (say $12/hour) than if he is not working. That being the case, there is obviously an incentive for this currently unemployed person to take up even a low paying job right now, because taking up a current low paying job will basically brighten his future prospects (of getting a high paying job).
Don't think that this reasoning is correct. The conclusion of the argument says that the unemployed adult has no financial incentive to accept a job in which he will get government assistance. (Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement). The argument is not just talking about the unemployed adult taking any job.

From the conclusion of the argument, I think the comparison is between jobs in which the person will get government assistance and jobs in which he will not get government assistance. And the argument says that there is no incentive in taking jobs in which he gets the government supplement.

I am stumped by this question. As per me, the credited answer, which is C, does not weaken the argument. It could hold true in both cases - whether he joins a job in which he gets the supplement or a job in which he doesn't.

To me, A looks reasonable (though not perfect). If there are no taxes on the supplement for "unemployed people" and assuming that there is no tax on supplement even when the person is employed, then there is a financial incentive to take up a job "that would entitle him to the supplement".

I am totally stumped by this question - can experts please point to something that I am missing?

User avatar
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2015 6:25 am
Thanked: 1 times
Followed by:1 members

by sidchilling » Sun Nov 15, 2015 6:03 am
sidchilling wrote:
bonetlobo wrote:What the editorial says is:

Suppose government assistance for unemployed adults is $10/hour

Let's take an unemployed adult.

Now, the new proposal is: If this unemployed adult accepts a job that pays less than government assistance (say this unemployed adult accepts a job that pays $8/hour), then the government would contribute $2/hour, so that this person's total income is $10/hour.

If we really look at it, for this unemployed adult,
i) If he doesn't work at all, then he gets $10/hour
ii) If he works, then also he gets $10/hour ($8/hour from his employer + $2/hour from Government)

So, if there is no difference in this person's income whether he works or does not work, the argument concludes that this person has no incentive to work.

We have to weaken this conclusion.

This is what C does. It says that this person, if he is working, is more likely to get a higher-paying job (say $12/hour) than if he is not working. That being the case, there is obviously an incentive for this currently unemployed person to take up even a low paying job right now, because taking up a current low paying job will basically brighten his future prospects (of getting a high paying job).
Don't think that this reasoning is correct. The conclusion of the argument says that the unemployed adult has no financial incentive to accept a job in which he will get government assistance. (Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement). The argument is not just talking about the unemployed adult taking any job.

From the conclusion of the argument, I think the comparison is between jobs in which the person will get government assistance and jobs in which he will not get government assistance. And the argument says that there is no incentive in taking jobs in which he gets the government supplement.

I am stumped by this question. As per me, the credited answer, which is C, does not weaken the argument. It could hold true in both cases - whether he joins a job in which he gets the supplement or a job in which he doesn't.

To me, A looks reasonable (though not perfect). If there are no taxes on the supplement for "unemployed people" and assuming that there is no tax on supplement even when the person is employed, then there is a financial incentive to take up a job "that would entitle him to the supplement".

I am totally stumped by this question - can experts please point to something that I am missing?
On thinking again, I think that the scope of argument is just jobs in which you get the supplement and so C looks correct. Really tricky. One could argue that unemployed people will not get jobs which pay higher than the assistance else they would not remain un-employed in the first place. Again, I think this question is really tricky.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 18
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2015 11:22 pm
Thanked: 1 times
GMAT Score:720

by mack13 » Sun Dec 27, 2015 9:38 am
Can anyone explain why D is not a correct choice.
I think I am not able to understand it correctly.

It states that the financial assistance that the government provides to the people who have no other income or unemployed people is less than the average starting wage. As per this choice, the adults will indeed opt for jobs since their pay will be higher. What am I missing here ??

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:09 am

by gocoder » Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:13 am
I was stuck between A and D on the test.


Can someone explain why A is not a weakener, please.