IMO B.

Jobs have been eliminated, ppl are forced to emigrate to the west in search of job. Since jobs are eliminated, skilled ppl left in east will have to compete more.

OA plzzzzzz???

g000fy wrote:Recently, highly skilled workers in Eastern Europe have left jobs in record numbers to emigrate to the West. It is therefore likely that skilled workers who remain in Eastern Europe are in high demand in their home countries.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
(A) Eastern European factories prefer to hire workers from their home countries rather than to import workers from abroad.
(B) Major changes in Eastern European economic structures have led to the elimination of many positions previously held by the highly skilled emigrants.
(C) Many Eastern European emigrants need to acquire new skills after finding work in the West.
(D) Eastern European countries plan to train many new workers to replace the highly skilled workers who have emigrated.
(E) Because of the departure of skilled workers from Eastern European countries, many positions are now unfilled.

Source - Aristotle CR

B here
B says that the Gov changed its economic structure thus they dont need much high skill worked and it weakens the conclusion saying that the Gov will deman more high skill worker remained in the country

Assumption here: positions available > hs ppl available in ee.

Agree with B...yes positions have been eliminated, so ppl left but are not available to locals either


I found C very attractive too but workers after their training could return back for the same position so the arg is not entirely weakened.

IMO D

i m with thephoenix the answer should be D.
new workers will be trained to replace high skill worker's position so the worker those dont migrates to the eastern europe will not be benifitted

My Pick B.

OA please!

The correct answer is definitely choice B.

The argument is that the Eastern European skilled workers who remain in their home countries are in high demand. Choice B tells us that many of the jobs they could have had--many of the roles they could have filled--are simply no longer there. Thus, this casts doubt on the idea that they are in high demand.

I can see why choice D is tempting. It is wrong because it talks about the future--what they plan. So, according to choice D, in the future they may not be in demand.

Had the argument been a prediction--had it said "they will be in demand for many years to come" then choice D would be a weakener. However, the argument only discusses the present--the conclusion is that they ARE in demand.

Or, had choice D told us that Eastern European countries have ALREADY trained many new workers, then it would weaken the idea that the skilled workers who remained are in high demand.

Choice A is a strengthener as it makes it less likely that factories will hire people from outside their home countries, and thus strengthens the idea that those who remained in their home countries are in demand.

Choice C is outside the scope as it talks about Eastern Europeans who move to the West whereas the argument was about those who remained in their Eastern European home countries.

Choice E is a strengthener as it affirms the idea that there is a need for the skilled workers' skillset. (Choice E is like the opposite of Choice B).

Thanks Tesluv. Your explanation really makes sense

OA updated

thanks testluv

now its clear