WEAKEN

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 3:06 am
Thanked: 6 times

WEAKEN

by gmatnmein2010 » Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:37 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.

e. The drop in the employment rate was more severe this year than last.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 777
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:02 am
Location: Mumbai, India
Thanked: 117 times
Followed by:47 members

by komal » Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:43 am
gmatnmein2010 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?

Cause >>>>>> Lack of capital reserves
Effect >>>>>> Decline in employment rate

a. Major industry foresaw the drop in employment.
Incorrect : Whether major industries foresaw the drop in employment is not relevant.

b. Some major industries had appreciable capital reserves.
Incorrect : Argument talks about major industries in general not SOME major industries. Eliminated !

c. An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate.
Correct : This show an alternate cause (increase in labor costs) for the stated effect (drop in employment rate). Hence this weakens the argument.

d. The government could pass legislation mandating that major industries set aside a fixed amount as capital reserves every year.
Incorrect : This does nothing to weaken the argument above.

e. The drop in the employment rate was more severe this year than last.
Incorrect : How does it effect the conclusion of the argument? Eliminated !
Last edited by komal on Fri Feb 05, 2010 8:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 2:38 am
Thanked: 137 times
Followed by:5 members

by thephoenix » Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:44 am
Here , the argument is that "So if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future. "

the conclusion is the employment rate will not decline in the future.

Argument places one cause and the dismisses and puts another one as main cause leading to a conclusion.
So in doing so it assumes that this second cause is actually the only cause and all others causes are absent.

If we display that there could be another cause that can lead to the said result , the argument could be weakened.
C , does precisely that.

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 303
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2015 10:23 am

by joseph32 » Sun May 15, 2016 11:15 pm
It seems to me that the right answer is D