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

Redeem

Target Test Prep · GMAT

Choose how you want to prepare

Learn live with an expert or move at your own pace. Every option includes the complete TTP study system.

★★★★★5.0559 reviews
Vote for Target Test Prep, Newsweek Readers’ Choice Awards 2026
NEWSWEEK READERS’ CHOICE 2026

BIG NEWS! Target Test Prep has been nominated, and they’d love your vote!

TTP has worked incredibly hard to build the best test prep experience possible, and winning Newsweek’s 2026 Readers’ Choice Award for Best Test Prep would mean a lot to them. If TTP has helped you, they’d be incredibly grateful for your vote. You can vote once each day through September 9.

Vote for TTP
GMATLiveTeach 7 seats left
Chris Peckover
NEXT LIVE COHORT

Oct 13 to Jan 7, 2027

with Chris Peckover

Schedule
Tue, Thu · 8:00 to 10:00 PM ET
Included
40 live hours + 6 months of GMAT OnDemand
  • Live instruction and real-time questions
  • Class recordings and assigned practice
View class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
EALiveTeach 5 seats left
Logan Thompson
EXECUTIVE ASSESSMENT

Sep 6 to Dec 6, 2026

with Logan Thompson

Schedule
Sun · 9:30 AM to 12:30 PM ET
Included
40 hours of live online classes plus six months of access to the complete TTP EA OnDemand course.
  • 165+ EA Score Guarantee
  • 4,100+ Quant, Verbal, and Integrated Reasoning practice questions
  • 400+ hours of in-depth video lessons
  • 3,000+ step-by-step video solutions
View EA class & enroll
Limited cohort · enrollment openTarget Test Prep
GMATOnDemand Start anytime
SELF-PACED MASTERCLASS

Target Test Prep GMAT OnDemand

Complete access from day one. Study on your schedule.

715+ score guarantee
$0to start then $127/mo
  • Personalized study plan and analytics
  • Thousands of lessons and practice questions

Compare the format, schedule, and included access before enrolling. Prices and seat counts shown reflect the supplied offer details.

Minimum Wage in Kirklandia

Expert replies
by sg7007 » Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:38 pm
In two months, the legal minimum wage in the country of Kirlandia will increase from five Kirlandic dollars(KD5.00) Per hour to KD5.50 per hour. Opponents of this increase have argued that the resulting rise in wages will drive the inflation rate up. In fact its impact on wages will probably be negligible, since only a very small proportion of all Kirfandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour.

Q. Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

A. Most people in kirlandia who are currently earning the minimum wage have
been employed at their current jobs for less than a year.
B. Some firms in Kirlandia have paid workers considerably less than KD5.00
per hour, in violation of kirlandic employment regulations.
C. Many businesses hire trainees at or near the minimum wage but must
reward trained workers by keeping their paylevels above the pay level
of trainees.
D. The greatest growth in Kirlandia’s economy in recent years has been in
those sectors where workers earn wages that tend to be much higher
than the minimum wage.
E The current minimum wage is insufficient for a worker holding only one job to earn enough to support a family ,even when working full time at that job.

This is a re-constructed problem. They say the correct answer is (B), but I think it's (C). I'm not 100% sure about that, though. Can someone tell me what the correct answer is and give me some detailed explanation?

Thanks in advance.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

by dendude » Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:36 am
B is perfectly fine.

The argument is about the impact on wages (in view of the increase) being very less and hence would not actually cause an increase in inflation.
B is the only option that actually says the impact on wages is considerable. Since some workers were receiving wages considerably below $5 (say, maybe $1) - the impact on the wages of these workers is pretty high. And probably will cause inflation.

C is clearly out of scope. Trained and Untrained workers do not fit in the argument.
Join the discussion

by krisraam » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:25 am
IMO B.

B is the only choice that fits the bill here.

The usage "Some " will put some doubt . However will be compensated by the usage "Considerably".

Thanks
Raama
Join the discussion

by 4seasoncentre » Wed Apr 15, 2009 6:13 pm
I'm with you SG7007.

To me, those that are already breaking the law will continue to do so and that strengthens the argument.
Last edited by 4seasoncentre on Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Join the discussion

by Vemuri » Wed Apr 15, 2009 8:01 pm
This is a weaken question. Lets find out the conclusion & premise. The assumption we narrow down on should widen the gap between the conclusion & premise.

Premise: In two months, the legal minimum wage in Kirlandia will increase from KD5.00 Per hour to KD5.50 per hour. Opponents of this increase argue that the resulting rise in wages will drive the inflation rate up.

Conclusion: The impact of rise in minimum wage will be negligible influence on inflation, since only a very small proportion of all Kirfandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour.

We should look for an answer choice that attacks the conclusion.

A - States that most people who are working for less than 1 year are already earning the minimum wage (KD5.0) - Does nothing to the conclusion.
B - Some firms in Kirlandia have paid workers considerably less than KD5.00 per hour. So, increasing their wage to the KD5.5 in 2 months will be like giving them more money. So, there is a considerable impact in this scenario.
C - Trainees get minimum wage while trained should get higher. This does not attack the conclusion in a serious way.
D - Does not do anything to the conclusion, because people are already getting more than the minimum wage & so, increasing the minimum wage has no impact.
E. Out of scope.

Hope this helps.
Join the discussion

by sg7007 » Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:55 pm
The answer choice, (B) states that some firms have been paying significantly less than KD5.00, which is clearly in violation of the current Kirklandic minimum wage law. So, how could it be guaranteed that those companies won't violate the minimum wage law by still paying less than KD5.50, which would be the new minimum wage? This is why I thought (B) didn't weaken the author's argument that the new law's impact would be negligible on wages.

The second issue is a poor wording of the passage itself.

"Opponents of this increase have argued that the resulting rise in wages will drive the inflation rate up. In fact its impact on wages will probably be negligible."

It says opponents have argued something about the inflation rate, then the author suddenly makes an opposing conclusion regarding wages. Of course those two are closely related, but still, I think this passage is poorly reconstructed. What do you guys think about this?
Join the discussion

by delhiboy1979 » Wed Apr 15, 2009 11:37 pm
I think C weakens the conclusion more than B. For instance, the use of many and some. Also as mentioned in one of the comments above, there is no guarantee that 'some' firms will pay more and not violate the law.

Can we have the source of the question please.
Join the discussion

by sg7007 » Thu Apr 16, 2009 5:01 am
delhiboy1979 wrote:I think C weakens the conclusion more than B. For instance, the use of many and some. Also as mentioned in one of the comments above, there is no guarantee that 'some' firms will pay more and not violate the law.

Can we have the source of the question please.
The Powerscore LSAT LR Bible says, "many" and "some" have similar meanings in terms of quantity. I think (C) is closer to the correct answer, but I don't think it's because of the difference of the meaning b/w the terms "many" and "some"

This is a question from a collection of reconstructed problem sets, called GWD. I'm not sure if this is a standard name for it.
Join the discussion

by samanthaJ79 » Sun May 15, 2016 4:45 am
I'm pretty confident that B is correct answer.
Join the discussion