BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

Employment Rate - MGMAT CR 700+ Level

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:42 pm
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

Employment Rate - MGMAT CR 700+ Level

by vineetbatra » Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:27 am
The recent decline in the employment rate was spurred by predictions of slow economic growth in the coming year. However, those predictions would not have affected the employment rate if it had not been for the lack of capital reserves of major industries. So if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the validity of the argument above?

a. Major industry foresaw the drop in employment.
b. Some major industries had appreciable capital reserves.
c. An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate.
d. The government could pass legislation mandating that major industries set aside a fixed amount as capital reserves every year.

This seems like a straightforward question, but the answer is twisted OA is C. My choice is B.

Can someone explain why it is what it is.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:57 am
Thanked: 7 times
GMAT Score:720

by gmat_dest » Wed Aug 05, 2009 7:51 am
Close call between B and C.

I did not choose B, because it says some major companies.
This does not invalidate the cause-effect much.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun May 18, 2008 2:47 am
Thanked: 12 times

Re: Employment Rate - MGMAT CR 700+ Level

by shahdevine » Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:29 am
vineetbatra wrote:The recent decline in the employment rate was spurred by predictions of slow economic growth in the coming year. However, those predictions would not have affected the employment rate if it had not been for the lack of capital reserves of major industries. So if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future.

Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the validity of the argument above?

a. Major industry foresaw the drop in employment.
b. Some major industries had appreciable capital reserves.
c. An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate.
d. The government could pass legislation mandating that major industries set aside a fixed amount as capital reserves every year.
This seems like a straightforward question, but the answer is twisted OA is C. My choice is B.

Can someone explain why it is what it is.
The author is setting up a false cause. He says if major industries increase their capital reserves the employment rate will not decline. In order to weaken an argument, you have to attack the premise which supports the author's claim. In this particular case, if you find another cause that could affect the employment rate negatively you have weakened the argument.

Answer B is a red herring. It sounds good, because it mentions capital reserves and how some industries had some capital reserves but it does not attack the argument. So its neither here nor there. Its very weak. Check out the key word "some" in "some major industries." This is a particular quantity. We want universal quantities like "All" or "Every single" to attack this argument.

In Answer C, we have another cause which can adversely affect the employment rate and the language is universal. C is the right choice.

you got this!
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 160
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 1:17 am
Location: Rourkela/Hyderabad
Thanked: 4 times
Followed by:1 members

by sanp_l » Wed Aug 05, 2009 9:08 am
B and C are close.
It always happens that two options fit in the category and you need to choose one. Better you key in on these two and look for minute differences which might justify the correct one.
In this case, Option B says that "some" major industries. Option C doesn't have any such dependencies. Hence i would go for option C.
Hope this helped.
Sandy
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:19 pm

by deepak115 » Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:16 am
The Conclusion is "if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future."

Based on Premise "However, those predictions would not have affected the employment rate if it had not been for the lack of capital reserves of major industries."

To casts doubt on the validity of the argument:
Attack the conclusion or the premise, which choice C does best by attacking the premise !
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:42 pm
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

by vineetbatra » Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:21 pm
I do agree that B is not the best because of the word "Some". But I still don't understand why C.

I think I am missing the point here and i.e. how to solve a weaking question.

Can someone please explain me in the most rudimentary way assuming I am an novice.

Thanks,

Vineet
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:56 am

by Musicolo » Thu Aug 06, 2009 1:58 am
I dont see how C is the correct one. Sure, increase in labor costs could affect employment rate but so can few other things. The point is to weaken the argument as it is. C seems totally out of scope as it introduces something completely new, new assumption, and the golden rule of CR is never to assume too many things. Thats what C does. What is the source of this question?
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 260
Joined: Sun Oct 12, 2008 8:10 pm
Thanked: 4 times

by PAB2706 » Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:35 am
well C gives an alternate reasoning for the fall in employment rate...

So wht C tries to tell us is tht even if industries have enuf capital reserves, if cost of labour increased even then employment rate can fall....

BTW even i fell for B
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 52
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2009 2:44 pm
Location: Irvine, CA
Thanked: 1 times

by georgeung » Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:18 pm
Aye. B is tempting. I picked B, saw the answer, read the rest of this thread, and then slapped my forehead.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:42 pm
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

by vineetbatra » Sat Aug 08, 2009 6:18 pm
deepak115 wrote:The Conclusion is "if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future."

Based on Premise "However, those predictions would not have affected the employment rate if it had not been for the lack of capital reserves of major industries."

To casts doubt on the validity of the argument:
Attack the conclusion or the premise, which choice C does best by attacking the premise !
How is choice C attacking the premise, Premise has nothing to do with the cost of labor, it is more close to attacking the conclusion. I just can't seem to figure out this question
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 186
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:50 pm
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

by ogbeni » Sun Aug 09, 2009 4:42 am
vineetbatra wrote:
How is choice C attacking the premise, Premise has nothing to do with the cost of labor, it is more close to attacking the conclusion. I just can't seem to figure out this question
Based on the question stem, this is not only a weaken question but also a cause and effect type question

When you try to weaken a question with cause and effect logic, isolate the cause and effect which in this argument goes:
1. Prediction of slow economic growth --> Decline in Employment Rate
2. Lack of Capital --> Prediction of slow economic growth
3. Conclusion, If companies have capital --> No prediction of slow economic growth --> No decline in employment rate.

To weaken a cause and effect, all you have to do is find an alternate cause that would result in the effect. Don't dwell too much on whether it makes sense and other posters have already pointed out that C is an alternate cause. Note that alternate cause does not have to attack the premise, it just has to weaken it by demonstrating that the cause-->effect relationship is the stimulus is not the only possibility - I think that is where you have a problem with the explanations provided.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 12:42 pm
Thanked: 2 times
Followed by:1 members

by vineetbatra » Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:40 am
ogbeni wrote:
vineetbatra wrote:

When you try to weaken a question with cause and effect logic, isolate the cause and effect which in this argument goes:
1. Prediction of slow economic growth --> Decline in Employment Rate
2. Lack of Capital --> Prediction of slow economic growth
3. Conclusion, If companies have capital --> No prediction of slow economic growth --> No decline in employment rate.

To weaken a cause and effect, all you have to do is find an alternate cause that would result in the effect. Don't dwell too much on whether it makes sense and other posters have already pointed out that C is an alternate cause. Note that alternate cause does not have to attack the premise, it just has to weaken it by demonstrating that the cause-->effect relationship is the stimulus is not the only possibility - I think that is where you have a problem with the explanations provided.
This makes a lot more sense, thanks for clearin it out. So just to make sure that we seek new information in a Weaken question only when there is Casue and Effect relationship?

Thanks,

Vineet
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 2228
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 3:28 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanked: 639 times
Followed by:694 members
GMAT Score:780

by Stacey Koprince » Fri Jul 30, 2010 6:07 am
May want to read this:

https://www.beatthegmat.com/cr-weaken-th ... 59878.html
Please note: I do not use the Private Messaging system! I will not see any PMs that you send to me!!

Stacey Koprince
GMAT Instructor
Director of Online Community
Manhattan GMAT

Contributor to Beat The GMAT!

Learn more about me
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1