dude!
Check your source


IMO D


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 the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay
for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office. So there can be no question that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument in the advertisement?
A. The average pay for jobs created in the city during the past three years was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmont’s tenure.

but conclusion says every year going fatter...
B. Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.

no sense
C. Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.

No sense ,,,,, total 100 jobs before mayor took oath

Job eliminate first year : 1-10
second year: 20-30
and so on...

It gives no idea that some newly jobs will be eliminated


D. The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.

Correct..
If the average pay of jobs removed are very high...then that will mess up the average pay per year...
E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city

Suburbs

Thanks Ronnie - I know the source I am using gives unreliable answers sometimes but the questions are good. They do not have a lot of flaws.


Anyways - I think D seems the right choice.

Hi GMAT GuruNY,

Would you please tell me why A is wrong? Is it for restating what is given in the argument or for mentioning particular time, three years? Or any other reason?

This question does not include a right answer as none of the answer choices really strengthens the argument.

A) This proves nothing. There could have been thousands of jobs lost and only ten created in the past three years and ten created earlier in the mayor's tenure, and this statement would still be true. Further while the ones created in the past three years may be higher paying relative to those created earlier in the mayor's tenure, they could all pay lower than the average.

B) This does not help either. It does not say that average pay has gotten higher, only that it was at a low.

C) If anything this could be seen as weakening the argument by indicating that some of the new jobs have already been lost, but anyway it does nothing to strengthen the argument as it gives no information that indicates that the average paycheck has increased.

D) This is maybe the best choice, because it maybe kinda sorta somehow confirms that the jobs eliminated were not relatively high paying jobs, but really it does not strengthen an argument about jobs that were created, because it provides nothing that indicates anything about new jobs. So it's not a valid OA.

E) This tells us basically nothing about job creation during this mayor's tenure.

My suggestion is that you forward a link to this thread along with the question number, if there is one available, to the source of this question to make them aware that it needs to be fixed.