Critical Reasoning

8. Teenagers are often priced out of the labor market by the government-mandated minimum-wage level because employers cannot afford to pay that much for extra help. Therefore, if Congress institutes a subminimum wage, a new lower legal wage for teenagers, the teenage unemployment rate, which has been rising since 1960, will no longer increase.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
(A) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen when the minimum wage has risen.
(B) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant.
(C) Employers often hire extra help during holiday and warm weather seasons.
(D) The teenage unemployment rate rose more quickly in the 1970's than it did in the 1960's.
(E) The teenage unemployment rate has occasionally declined in the years since 1960.

Correct answer B.

Whats wrong with answer [/spoiler]A[spoiler]?[/spoiler]

My reasoning may not sound convincing but here's what I thought while answering this question.

C, D and E are clearly out of scope. The fight is between A and B. I chose B because B says that unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant. So this implies that rise in unemployment is due to some other factors and not due to wages. So fixing wages is not going to help. So in a way it is weakening the argument.

Hope that helps..

dkumar.83 wrote:8. Teenagers are often priced out of the labor market by the government-mandated minimum-wage level because employers cannot afford to pay that much for extra help. Therefore, if Congress institutes a subminimum wage, a new lower legal wage for teenagers, the teenage unemployment rate, which has been rising since 1960, will no longer increase.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
(A) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen when the minimum wage has risen.
(B) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant.
(C) Employers often hire extra help during holiday and warm weather seasons.
(D) The teenage unemployment rate rose more quickly in the 1970's than it did in the 1960's.
(E) The teenage unemployment rate has occasionally declined in the years since 1960.

Correct answer B.

Whats wrong with answer [/spoiler]A[spoiler]?[/spoiler]

The question asks for an answer choice that weakens the argument; the conclusion is that a subminimum wage would halt the increase in the teenage unemployment rate. The argument states that the minimum wage prices teenagers out of the labor market, but doesn't address why the unemployment rate for teenagers has been increasing since the 1960s. The assumption is that the minimum wage is responsible for the rising unemployment rate. If choice A were true, and the unemployment rate was rising at the same time as the minimum wage was rising, the correlation between the two would strengthen the causal argument. Since we're trying to weaken the argument, A is therefore not a good choice. B, on the other hand, eliminates that correlation and therefore weakens the likelihood of a causal connection. B is the best choice.

As the previous commenter noted, C, D, and E are definitely out of scope, since none them them directly links the minimum wage and teenage unemployment.

hardik.jadeja wrote:My reasoning may not sound convincing but here's what I thought while answering this question.

C, D and E are clearly out of scope. The fight is between A and B. I chose B because B says that unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant. So this implies that rise in unemployment is due to some other factors and not due to wages. So fixing wages is not going to help. So in a way it is weakening the argument.

Hope that helps..

@Good reasoning jadeja bhai...

@Andrea...option A strengthens the argument...that was a good "eye-opener"....thx..

dkumar.83 wrote:8. Teenagers are often priced out of the labor market by the government-mandated minimum-wage level because employers cannot afford to pay that much for extra help. Therefore, if Congress institutes a subminimum wage, a new lower legal wage for teenagers, the teenage unemployment rate, which has been rising since 1960, will no longer increase.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
(A) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen when the minimum wage has risen.
(B) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant.
(C) Employers often hire extra help during holiday and warm weather seasons.
(D) The teenage unemployment rate rose more quickly in the 1970's than it did in the 1960's.
(E) The teenage unemployment rate has occasionally declined in the years since 1960.

Correct answer B.

Whats wrong with answer [/spoiler]A[spoiler]?[/spoiler]

guys whats the source ?

I'm not sure if i agree with the answer choice. Although out of the list it is the most likely answer, the argument does not give us any idea on how often the minimum wage has risen since 1960. Hence, we have can also assume that the minimum wage levels have remained the same since 1960 i.e. constant (in the CR world of course).

That said, the argument actually calls for the implementation of a sub minimum wage which would be lower than the minimum wage. Hence, we can assume that the minimum wage has remained the same since 1960 and teenage unemployment has been rising which is why the author calls for the implementation of a lower which; with this in mind B would make for an iffy choice.

Thoughts?

I too have doubt on B as answer.

The stimulus says that employers are reluctant to pay the minimum wage to teenagers as min wage looks quite high to employers for the little extra help.

If thats the case then even when min wage remains comstant, the teenager umemployemnt rate can increase.

For eg. the min wage is $40 per hour for teenagers. The employers considers this rate to be high so they dont hire many teenagers. As more and more young children might be becoming teenagers every yr, the rate of teenager unemployment might increase.

So how come this ans choice weaken the q ?

Experts pls explain.

I guess the only way option B would weaken the argument is if we assume that there are other factors that contribute to the rise in teenage unemployment even when the minimum wage is constant. And moreover there are no other options that weaken the argument more than option B.

A strengthen the arg -- eliminate

Before reading the options I tried to figure out what the answer could be. to weaken there is typically one thing-- different cause for the stated effect.

That is what B is doing- As per the option B there are some other reasons for the increase in the 'unemployement rate' - this is the correct answer.

Whats wrong with D?

boltu_gmat wrote:Whats wrong with D?

(D) The teenage unemployment rate rose more quickly in the 1970's than it did in the 1960's.

its way out of scope!

then what about 1980's 1990's and so on!? and we are not bothered about the "red" part

Straight b

(B) is correct answer

I am confused between B and E.

Question says teenage unemployment is rising since 1960, and statement E straight away rules it out mentioning that unemployment rate did go down occasionally. So, I think E should be the right answer.

Please clarify

B like A can also strengthen instead of weaken.
The argument does not state whether the minimum wage limit was rising or was constant.One is lead to assume that under both the conditions the unemployment rate has increased.
A.When the minimum wage has risen
B.When the minimu wage is constant,which was still higher for labor market to pay for teens.
E.Infact calls the conclusion into question...

Experts.Please help!