Live GMAT classes with Target Test Prep start Nov 21 and Nov 22. First class free.

See classes
Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026 winner: Target Test Prep, #1 Test Prep

Target Test Prep was voted #1 Best Test Prep in the 2026 Newsweek Readers’ Choice™ Awards.

★★★★★5.0563 reviews
GMATLiveTeachStarts Nov 22
Josh Braslow, Target Test Prep GMAT expert
LIVE ONLINE CLASSES

Get Ready for GMAT Test Day Faster with Live Online Classes

with Josh Braslow, 20+ years in test prep

Nov 22 · Josh Braslow
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes + 6 months of TTP OnDemand
  • Attend the first class for free
  • Every class is recorded, so you never fall behind
View classes & enroll
Limited seats availableTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeachOnDemandStart anytime
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Target Test Prep EA OnDemand

Self-paced EA prep. Study on your schedule.

EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

with

165+ EA score guarantee
$05-day trial no automatic billing
Schedule
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll Start free 5-day trial
Limited cohort · enrollment openTrial includes full course accessTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemandStart anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

CR 101

Expert replies
by jaygirl001 » Sat Oct 02, 2010 7:33 pm
Many non-profit companies pay their employees a wage significantly lower than the wage earned by employees doing comparable work in the for profit sector. A director of a non-profit company argued that the pay scale was justified because working at a non-profit company provides employees wirh valuable work experience.

Which of the following, if true, seriously weakens the explanation given by the director.

A. Directors of non-profit companies earned salaries comparable to those of directors in the for profit sector
B. Some employees at non-profit companies believe they are doing a service to society.
C. Most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years.
D. After working in the non-profit sector for many years, some employees earn wages higher than those earned by some employees in the for profit sector.
E. Non-profit companies often provide services that for profit companies will not.


I just don't see the connection between the argument and the alleged right answer :/
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by ashokkadam » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:03 pm
There is indeed a connection.
A is the best and correct answer choice. A tells us that if Directors(who are also emplyees) of non-profit companies can have salaries same as those of profit companies, then the argument is easily weakened.
jaygirl001 wrote:Many non-profit companies pay their employees a wage significantly lower than the wage earned by employees doing comparable work in the for profit sector. A director of a non-profit company argued that the pay scale was justified because working at a non-profit company provides employees wirh valuable work experience.

Which of the following, if true, seriously weakens the explanation given by the director.

A. Directors of non-profit companies earned salaries comparable to those of directors in the for profit sector
B. Some employees at non-profit companies believe they are doing a service to society.
C. Most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years.
D. After working in the non-profit sector for many years, some employees earn wages higher than those earned by some employees in the for profit sector.
E. Non-profit companies often provide services that for profit companies will not.


I just don't see the connection between the argument and the alleged right answer :/
Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins.
Join the discussion

by gmatrix » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:11 pm
hmmmm...............

my pick would be C

explanation by the director:pay scale was justified because working at a non-profit company provides employees with valuable work experience.

what if they have been working there for an extended period of time.......... and C states that most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years.
Life is all about ass; you're either covering it, laughing it off, kicking it, kissing it, busting it, trying to get a piece of it, or behaving like one.
Join the discussion

by ezhilkumarank » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:23 pm
jaygirl001 wrote:Many non-profit companies pay their employees a wage significantly lower than the wage earned by employees doing comparable work in the for profit sector. A director of a non-profit company argued that the pay scale was justified because working at a non-profit company provides employees wirh valuable work experience.

Which of the following, if true, seriously weakens the explanation given by the director.

A. Directors of non-profit companies earned salaries comparable to those of directors in the for profit sector
B. Some employees at non-profit companies believe they are doing a service to society.
C. Most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years.
D. After working in the non-profit sector for many years, some employees earn wages higher than those earned by some employees in the for profit sector.
E. Non-profit companies often provide services that for profit companies will not.


I just don't see the connection between the argument and the alleged right answer :/
I vote for option C.

The stimulus notes that -- the pay scale was justified because working at a non-profit company provides employees wirh valuable work experience. and option C attacks it.
"The will-to-do achieves the deed, when the mind that wills is strong indeed"
Join the discussion

by ashokkadam » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:24 pm
What if they have been working at non-profit for more than five years just BECAUSE it is giving them valuable experience and thus they have continued to work for so long. Thus argument can not be weakened by C.
gmatrix wrote:hmmmm...............

my pick would be C

explanation by the director:pay scale was justified because working at a non-profit company provides employees with valuable work experience.

what if they have been working there for an extended period of time.......... and C states that most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years.
Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins.
Join the discussion

by ov25 » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:51 pm
what if they have been working there for an extended period of time.......... and C states that most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years
having worked there >5yrs ..are you suggested they already got valuable work exp? or that they've little lethargic to move out? It tells me that there is still something this option is forcing us to assume before we can agree that it weakens..It may well be the case with other options as well.

However E seem to have some ray of hope in weakening...its the service that attracts employees and settle for less than market rather than for the valuable work experience..which indirectly suggests these employees are less than competition and so they require valuable work experience...

imo E
Join the discussion

by ashokkadam » Sat Oct 02, 2010 8:56 pm
@ov25,
the basic question is whether wages of non-profit employees are justified? hope this triggers you to pick A as answer.
ov25 wrote:
what if they have been working there for an extended period of time.......... and C states that most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years
having worked there >5yrs ..are you suggested they already got valuable work exp? or that they've little lethargic to move out? It tells me that there is still something this option is forcing us to assume before we can agree that it weakens..It may well be the case with other options as well.

However E seem to have some ray of hope in weakening...its the service that attracts employees and settle for less than market rather than for the valuable work experience..which indirectly suggests these employees are less than competition and so they require valuable work experience...

imo E
Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins.
Join the discussion

by gmatrix » Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:07 pm
hmmm........
imo... the basic question is Which of the following, if true, seriously weakens the explanation given by the director.

what is the explanation given by the director ?

A would be correct if it is asked what weakens the argument above?

or maybe i am reading too much into it
:idea:
Life is all about ass; you're either covering it, laughing it off, kicking it, kissing it, busting it, trying to get a piece of it, or behaving like one.
Join the discussion

by slash » Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:04 pm
My pick would be A
Join the discussion

by abhi.genx7 » Sat Oct 02, 2010 10:42 pm
Need official answer please .

Seems to be A
Join the discussion

by jaygirl001 » Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:59 am
"The correct answer is C because it weakens the argument by showing that most employees already have experience, so the pay scale is not justified."

So what if they have been working there for five years? I still don't see a connection.

I thought E was a better coice because if the work experience is not applicable to the for profit secor then how can it justify a lower pay..right?

it was a bad question
Join the discussion

by lokesh r » Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:52 am
Only option A seems to weaken the argument.

OA plzz...
Join the discussion

by diebeatsthegmat » Mon Oct 04, 2010 12:08 pm
jaygirl001 wrote:Many non-profit companies pay their employees a wage significantly lower than the wage earned by employees doing comparable work in the for profit sector. A director of a non-profit company argued that the pay scale was justified because working at a non-profit company provides employees wirh valuable work experience.

Which of the following, if true, seriously weakens the explanation given by the director.

A. Directors of non-profit companies earned salaries comparable to those of directors in the for profit sector
B. Some employees at non-profit companies believe they are doing a service to society.
C. Most of the employees in the non-profit industry have worked there for more than five years.
D. After working in the non-profit sector for many years, some employees earn wages higher than those earned by some employees in the for profit sector.
E. Non-profit companies often provide services that for profit companies will not.


I just don't see the connection between the argument and the alleged right answer :/
i think the answer is C because
the argument states that workers in non profit companies got low salary because the direct think the chances to work for his company is a chance to get more and more experience and experice here is sounded like "salary" or a reward, value reward
and C says that they have worked for the company 5 years.... 5 years is too long just for experience.... if they had just worked for only some months or 1 years, it would be ok, however its 5 years, you dont need to study to cook a chicken soup in 5 years, i think so
Join the discussion

by XLogic » Mon Oct 04, 2010 1:36 pm
jaygirl001 wrote:"The correct answer is C because it weakens the argument by showing that most employees already have experience, so the pay scale is not justified."

So what if they have been working there for five years? I still don't see a connection.

I thought E was a better coice because if the work experience is not applicable to the for profit secor then how can it justify a lower pay..right?

it was a bad question
Seems that we need to figure out what the conclusion is first. Then it should be easier to choose the best option that weakens it.

So, is the conclusion the first sentence or the second sentence?
I chose the 2nd sentence as the premise. why? it seems to be giving us supporting evidence
And the 1st sentence as the conclusion. why? it states a claim

If the above analysis is accurate then it seems to me that option A weakens the argument.
Key phrase: Employees doing the same work. Option A: Directors do the same work in both for-profit and non-profit.

D Also sounds good, but is wrong, because it does not compare exact comparable jobs (e.g. same job title)
Join the discussion

by nox104 » Mon Oct 04, 2010 4:15 pm
My pick is A. I think the ppl who are picking C are reading it incorrectly.

Gaining valuable experience != Number of years worked!

And you are not attacking the main point of why the director thinks it's ok for regular employees to be underpaid. A points out the hypocrisy in his statement. HTH.
Join the discussion