Girish,
i think option E tries to say that many of the elderly were taking financial help of their childrens prior to the increase. And any how this increase bears no or little effect for them.
Hope i am correct
gmat prep
This topic has expert replies
Source: Beat The GMAT — Critical Reasoning |
-
saurabhmahajan
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 2:21 am
- Thanked: 10 times
Thanks and regards,
Saurabh Mahajan
I can understand you not winning,but i will not forgive you for not trying.
Saurabh Mahajan
I can understand you not winning,but i will not forgive you for not trying.
-
rkanthilal
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 154
- Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:32 am
- Location: Chicago,IL
- Thanked: 46 times
- Followed by:19 members
- GMAT Score:760
Hi girishbtg,
IMO E. The question asks for a reason why, after an increase in the pension, the elderly citizens are no better off financially.
A) Does not answer this question because if the relied entirely on their pension then a 20 percent increase in their pension would surely make them better off financially.
B) The speed at which Runagian banks cash checks is irrelevant.
C) The argument states that inflation has been negligible, so this would not be a reason why the citizens are not better off.
D) The timing of the increase in the pension does not address why the citizens are not better off financially.
E) This answer provides a plausible reason why the citizens are no better off after the increased pension. This answer states that children supplement the income of the elderly to a set level ("only enough to provide them with a comfortable living"). Thus, the elderly get their income from two sources the government pension and children. So when the government pension went up the children must have cut the amount they were contributing. This in turn would lead to the elderly being no better off than before the increased pension.
Hope this clears it up...
IMO E. The question asks for a reason why, after an increase in the pension, the elderly citizens are no better off financially.
A) Does not answer this question because if the relied entirely on their pension then a 20 percent increase in their pension would surely make them better off financially.
B) The speed at which Runagian banks cash checks is irrelevant.
C) The argument states that inflation has been negligible, so this would not be a reason why the citizens are not better off.
D) The timing of the increase in the pension does not address why the citizens are not better off financially.
E) This answer provides a plausible reason why the citizens are no better off after the increased pension. This answer states that children supplement the income of the elderly to a set level ("only enough to provide them with a comfortable living"). Thus, the elderly get their income from two sources the government pension and children. So when the government pension went up the children must have cut the amount they were contributing. This in turn would lead to the elderly being no better off than before the increased pension.
Hope this clears it up...
