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

Redeem

Employer and Employee

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 3:10 am

by subhasis8877 » Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:30 am
I guess answer is C
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:56 pm
Thanked: 104 times
Followed by:1 members

by scoobydooby » Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:07 am
would go for A

conclusion: employers are partially responsible for the unions demanding prohibitively high prices

A. correct. the first bf is indeed a background information. the second is the conclusion

B. the first is not an evidence for the conlusion (the second boldface). the first bf is just a background info

C. the first is not an inference, if it were it wouldnt be stated in the stimulus in the first place

D. was tied between A and D. discarded D as it not defend the authors position (the second bf). the first bf is just a background info.

E. the second bf is not an evidence. it is the conclusion.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:02 am
Location: Azerbaijan/Baku
Thanked: 2 times

by S0laris » Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:32 am
IMO - C, bc 1-st bolded can be inferred indeed, and it has no influence on the 2-nd phrase, thus choices which extremely ties 1-st and 2-nd can be omitted.
we are the champions !
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:02 am
Location: Azerbaijan/Baku
Thanked: 2 times

by S0laris » Sun Mar 22, 2009 7:37 am
scoobydooby wrote:would go for A


A. correct. the first bf is indeed a background information. the second is the conclusion
it is a background info, but how is it necessary to drawn conclusion(as A states) ?
I think conclusion(2-nd) survives without 1-st bolded.
we are the champions !
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 239
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 2:50 am

by delhiboy1979 » Mon Mar 23, 2009 4:20 am
S0laris wrote:
scoobydooby wrote:would go for A


A. correct. the first bf is indeed a background information. the second is the conclusion
it is a background info, but how is it necessary to drawn conclusion(as A states) ?
I think conclusion(2-nd) survives without 1-st bolded.
I think it is necessary since it says in 2nd that the employers 'allowed' which can happen if they were in power.
Top
User avatar
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 9:59 am
Thanked: 2 times

by Kunal_gmat » Mon Mar 23, 2009 1:56 pm
IMO A
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 131
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2009 7:02 am
Location: Azerbaijan/Baku
Thanked: 2 times

by S0laris » Mon Mar 23, 2009 5:10 pm
delhiboy1979 wrote:
S0laris wrote:
scoobydooby wrote:would go for A


A. correct. the first bf is indeed a background information. the second is the conclusion
it is a background info, but how is it necessary to drawn conclusion(as A states) ?
I think conclusion(2-nd) survives without 1-st bolded.
I think it is necessary since it says in 2nd that the employers 'allowed' which can happen if they were in power.
IMO 1-st bolded can be inferred from this:
1 - employees banded in unions in an attempt to create a greater ballance of power.... - means that ballance was not so great before as it became after. So, considering only 2 sides: employees and employer, it is possible to infer that: The employer held the majority of the power in this relationship - thus, it seems like an inference and nothing more.

By allowing unions to survive... - is not the conclusion already, but another premise
...employers are partially responsible for current environment... - this is main conclusion
we are the champions !
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2014 4:32 am

by ashley.com » Sun May 15, 2016 2:43 am
I believe the answer should be A
Top
Post new topic Post Reply
• Page 1 of 1