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

Redeem

Mayor Delmont's claim!

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2015 7:43 am

Mayor Delmont's claim!

by gmat_for_life » Sun Feb 07, 2016 6:21 am
Political Advertisement:
Mayor Delmont's critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under
Delmont's leadership. Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than
were eliminated, but each year since Delmont took office the average pay for the
new jobs created has been higher than that year's average pay for jobs citywide. So
it stands to reason that throughout Delmont's tenure the average paycheck in this
city has been getting steadily bigger.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument in the
advertisement?
(A) The unemployment rate in the city is higher today than it was when
Mayor Delmont took office.
(B) The average pay for jobs in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor
Delmont took office.
(C) Each year during Mayor Delmont's tenure, the average pay for jobs that
were eliminated has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide.
(D) Most of the jobs eliminated during Mayor Delmont's tenure were in
declining industries.
(E) The average pay for jobs in the city is currently lower than it is for jobs
in the suburbs surrounding the city.
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:26 am
Location: https://martymurraycoaching.com/
Thanked: 955 times
Followed by:140 members
GMAT Score:800

by MartyMurray » Sun Feb 07, 2016 7:16 pm
The question asks which choice weakens the argument. So the first thing to do is find the conclusion of the argument and the premises upon which that conclusion is based.

The conclusion is "throughout Delmont's tenure the average paycheck in this
city has been getting steadily bigger."

The premises are "more jobs [were] created than were eliminated" and "each year since Delmont took office the average pay for the new jobs created has been higher than that year's average pay for jobs citywide."

(A) The fact that the unemployment rate has gone up seems to weaken the conclusion, but I guess the rate of employment does not really figure into the calculation of the average paycheck of those working. Possibly one could say that those unemployed get paid nothing, and so an increasing rate of unemployment lowers the average paycheck, but I am guessing that there is a better answer choice, one that does not require getting philosophical about the average paycheck of people who don't have jobs.

(B) This is irrelevant. To answer the question we need something that indicates that average pay did not go up while he was in office.

(C) This seems to be the best answer. If the pay for eliminated jobs was higher than the average pay for jobs citywide, even though the pay associated with newly created jobs was higher than the citywide average for the year in which they were created, the pay associated with the new jobs may not be as high as the pay for lost jobs had been. So the average paycheck may have decreased even though the pay associated with the new jobs was higher than the average pay for jobs citywide.

(D) What industries the eliminated jobs had been in does not affect the average pay.

(E) The difference between pay for jobs in the city and pay for jobs in the suburbs has no bearing on a conclusion about the change over time in average pay for jobs in the city.

So the only one that undermines the conclusion is C.
Marty Murray
Perfect Scoring Tutor With Over a Decade of Experience
MartyMurrayCoaching.com
Contact me at [email protected] for a free consultation.
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Thanked: 474 times
Followed by:365 members

by VivianKerr » Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:32 pm
This is one of those question that really proves the point that if you don't carefully analyze and break down the argument, you'll probably get the question incorrect.

Ask yourself: what are we meant to notice?

Here, we are given facts about new jobs $, eliminated jobs $, and overall jobs $ in the evidence. Then, notice how the conclusion ONLY focuses on overall jobs $ based on new jobs $.

It introduces a concept shift with the important keyword "throughout," and neglects to include the third piece of evidence: "eliminated job $." The correct answer must correctly tie BOTH of these ideas together.

Here's how I'd analyze this problem on my scratch paper:

Image

We may not know exactly how the correct answer will be phrased, but we understand the "job" it will do.

Prediction: WEAKEN by showing the eliminated job $ matters throughout!

Now, we don't even need to waste too much time analyzing the choices. It's clear that so many of these choices don't even remotely deal with the topics at hand: (A), (D), and (E).

You only need to quickly re-read (B) and (C) to grasp that (C) is a much better match for our prediction.

Takeaway: Always, ALWAYS write down a prediction and think for yourself before reading the CR answer choices! :-)
Last edited by VivianKerr on Fri Feb 12, 2016 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles

Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]

Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"! :-)
Top
User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 1035
Joined: Fri Dec 17, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Thanked: 474 times
Followed by:365 members

by VivianKerr » Thu Feb 11, 2016 3:33 pm
Sorry, just realized there's a typo in my notes. The prediction should read "does" and not "doesn't." #tutorfail :-)
Vivian Kerr
GMAT Rockstar, Tutor
https://www.GMATrockstar.com
https://www.yelp.com/biz/gmat-rockstar-los-angeles

Former Kaplan and Grockit instructor, freelance GMAT content creator, now offering affordable, effective, Skype-tutoring for the GMAT at $150/hr. Contact: [email protected]

Thank you for all the "thanks" and "follows"! :-)
Top

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
GMAT Instructor
Posts: 16207
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2008 6:26 pm
Location: Vancouver, BC
Thanked: 5254 times
Followed by:1268 members
GMAT Score:770

by Brent@GMATPrepNow » Thu Feb 11, 2016 4:00 pm
If you're interested, we have a free video on answering Weaken the Argument questions - https://www.gmatprepnow.com/module/gmat ... video/1136

There are some practice questions following that video for extra reinforcement.

Cheers,
Brent
Brent Hanneson - Creator of GMATPrepNow.com
Image
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 120
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2015 11:09 am

by gocoder » Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:24 pm
Choice C: Each year during Mayor Delmont's tenure, the average pay for jobs that
were eliminated has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide.

I was bit uneasy with this choice. Here is my chain of thought.

premise:
avg pay of new jobs>avg pay of the city jobs.
num. of new jobs >num. of lost jobs.

OC:
avg pay of lost jobs>avg pay of the city jobs.

case 1:
avg pay of new jobs>avg pay of lost jobs>avg pay of the city jobs

Then, overall average pay and total pay of the city could have increased, thus strengthening the conclusion.

case 2:
avg pay of lost jobs>>avg pay of new jobs>avg pay of the city jobs
In this case, the total deficit because of lost jobs is greater than that of newly added jobs, thus weakening the conlusion

As per choice C, both cases above are possible. Let me know if any flaw in this reasoning.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 2663
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 8:25 am
Location: Boston, MA
Thanked: 1153 times
Followed by:128 members
GMAT Score:770

by DavidG@VeritasPrep » Wed Sep 06, 2017 8:16 am
gocoder wrote:Choice C: Each year during Mayor Delmont's tenure, the average pay for jobs that
were eliminated has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide.

I was bit uneasy with this choice. Here is my chain of thought.

premise:
avg pay of new jobs>avg pay of the city jobs.
num. of new jobs >num. of lost jobs.

OC:
avg pay of lost jobs>avg pay of the city jobs.

case 1:
avg pay of new jobs>avg pay of lost jobs>avg pay of the city jobs

Then, overall average pay and total pay of the city could have increased, thus strengthening the conclusion.

case 2:
avg pay of lost jobs>>avg pay of new jobs>avg pay of the city jobs
In this case, the total deficit because of lost jobs is greater than that of newly added jobs, thus weakening the conlusion

As per choice C, both cases above are possible. Let me know if any flaw in this reasoning.
You're right that we don't know how the average salary of the new jobs compares to the average salary of the eliminated jobs.

Think of it this way: If we introduce new jobs whose salary is higher than the overall average, and no jobs were eliminated, the overall average has to go up, right? But if we introduce new jobs with a higher than average salary and also eliminate jobs with a higher than average salary, we no longer know what happened to the overall average. In other words, C introduces doubt, and this is enough to weaken the conclusion.
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor

Veritas Prep Reviews
Save $100 off any live Veritas Prep GMAT Course
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1