Critical Reasoning

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.
B. Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
C. Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
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.
E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.


OA is D
Stucked at [spoiler]B & D[/spoiler].. I feel both of them are correct. Any experts plz explain why B is wrong?

One POE from me -
Conclusion - average ... getting steadily bigger.
B - Average was at ten-year low when Delmont took office, does not strengthen.
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.
Editing - D, shows the increase was steady, B does not mention anything about rise/steady rise.

The premise clearly states that the average pay of jobs created was higher than average.If we somehow know that the average pay of jobs eliminated is not below average,then we can conclude that the average pay rose.

rx_11 wrote: B. Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.

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.
Stucked at [spoiler]B & D[/spoiler].. I feel both of them are correct. Any experts plz explain why B is wrong?

Hi rx,

Premise - Avg pay of new jobs higher
Conclusion - Total avg pay of city is increasing

Total avg pay = Avg pay of new jobs + avg pay of existing jobs - avg pay of eliminated job
For Total avg pay to increase, and Avg pay of new jobs is already increasing ==> we can play around with other two variables and assume/ strenghthen/ weaken...
The reason I feel B is wrong - It talks only about the avg pay, how it moved relative to other years. But no reference given to the jobs that got eliminated.