I chose B. It says unemployment rate rises even if wages are constant. It means lowering the wages will not impact umemployment rate.
Premise: Labor market mandates not applicable to teenagers because it is too costly.Teenagers are often priced out of the labor market by the government-mandated minimum-wage level because employers cannot afford to pay that much for extra help. Therefore, if Congress institutes a subminimum wage, a new lower legal wage for teenagers, the teenage unemployment rate, which has been rising since 1960, will no longer increase.
Conclusion: Introduction of new sub minimum wage will help in controlling the increasing unemployment rate.
The argument assumes that employers are willing to hire teenagers and teenagers are willing to work for employers at sub minimum wage.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
This strengthens rather weakens.(A) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen when the minimum wage has risen.
The unemployment rate increased despite keeping minimum wages constant. Thus, there should be some other reason for increasing unemployment rate. Correct.(B) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant.
Timing of help hired is irrelevant.(C) Employers often hire extra help during holiday and warm weather seasons.
Out of context!(D) The teenage unemployment rate rose more quickly in the 1970's than it did in the 1960's.
(E) The teenage unemployment rate has occasionally declined in the years since 1960.
No reason why it has declined. So, could not infer anything.
