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

Redeem

MGMAT - Boomer Retirement

This topic has expert replies
Post new topic Post Reply
Previous Topic Next Topic
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:27 pm
Thanked: 8 times

MGMAT - Boomer Retirement

by acecoolan » Mon Dec 08, 2008 9:00 pm
The anticipated retirement of tens of thousands of baby boomers will create an unprecedented opportunity to move significant numbers of people into career-track jobs at family-supporting incomes. Major industries, from health care and construction to automotive repair, will soon face deep shortages of workers as a result of projected growth and boomer retirements. Fortunately, many of these jobs have relatively low barriers to entry and could be filled by out-of-work young people. To achieve this result, the city government should convene employers and educators to determine how best to create paths of upward mobility in these fields.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

a) Immigration reform will limit the pool of available workers.
b) Government efforts have been shown to affect employment trends only rarely.
c) The best available positions require skills not possessed by the vast majority of the unemployed.
d) A small proportion of baby boomers will not retire as soon as is anticipated.
e) Many out-of-work young people are unaware of these looming employment opportunities.

OA after some discussion
Top
Source: — Critical Reasoning |
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 279
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:26 am
Location: Portland, OR
Thanked: 6 times

by pbanavara » Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:42 am
I guess C and E come close and between the two I would choose C as the stem says that government should come together with educators - which could imply they'll educate the unemployed about these open positions.

- pradeep
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: New Delhi , India
Thanked: 13 times

by ronniecoleman » Tue Dec 09, 2008 1:05 am
Had this question in MGMAT CAT 4

IMO B

not satisfied ....

I guess Ron or stacey can help us out ?
Admission champion, Hauz khaz
011-27565856
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:14 am
Thanked: 2 times

by Spring2009 » Tue Dec 09, 2008 4:41 am
ronniecoleman wrote:Had this question in MGMAT CAT 4

IMO B

not satisfied ....

I guess Ron or stacey can help us out ?
B is your opinion or the OA?
I picked C.
Top
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 467
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 10:19 pm
Thanked: 27 times
Followed by:1 members

by karmayogi » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:18 am
My understanding: retirement of ... baby boomers means experienced and skilled people are retiring, and their replacements should be skilled ones only. Any sentence that can prove that these positions can't be fullfilled by current unemployed people will weaken the argument most.

IMO C.
Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest this divine within.
--By Swami Vivekananda
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2008 4:21 am
Thanked: 27 times
Followed by:1 members
GMAT Score:660(

by 4meonly » Tue Dec 09, 2008 5:21 am
I agree with C.
B also weakens the argument, but we sekk that most weaken the argument - C is better.
Top
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 139
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:27 pm
Thanked: 8 times

by acecoolan » Tue Dec 09, 2008 7:08 am
The OA is 'B' as ronnie stated.

Let me pm ron or stacie and ask for their comments
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 17
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 4:15 pm

by penumbra547 » Tue Dec 09, 2008 3:23 pm
IMO, While I can see "C" as an answer, it mentions that only the BEST available positions require skills not possessed by the vast majority of the unemployed. However, the passage is concerned with jobs that have a "lower" job status classification, pegged at the "family-supporting incomes" level. So even if C is true, it doesn't weaken the argument, because C deal with a small portion of all new jobs in question.

I reluctantly chose "B" because it just sounds too simple to be true. But I suppose if the government has been shown to be ineffective, perhaps someone else is better suited for the task. For example, a for-profit employment agency or something.
Top
Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 6:54 pm

by shafeek » Sat Dec 13, 2008 5:46 pm
Here is why i chose B.
Argument says government should convene employers and educators to determine how best to create paths of upward mobility in these fields.

B states that government effort has no effect on such kind of trends..
So whatever government does it will have no effect. So no point in government giving it a try.
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 594
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 11:51 pm
Thanked: 12 times

by nervesofsteel » Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:18 pm
here are my two cents...

IMO B

conclusion :: the city government should convene employers and educators to determine how best to create paths of upward mobility in these fields.

B states that govt's decisions doesn't effect the jobs
Thus weakens the argument

C : Is wrong as it says something about the BEST AVAILABLE POSITIONS
But question stem is talking about many positions "BEST or WORST "
Top
Legendary Member
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:25 am
Thanked: 21 times

by reachac » Sun Dec 14, 2008 12:48 am
I like B the best.

The stem says "To achieve this result, the city government should convene employers and educators to determine how best to create paths of upward mobility in these fields."

"should" depicts affirmation, to weaken the argument, B provides a denial with affirmation.

"Government efforts have been shown to affect employment trends only rarely."

i.e. Government efforts have had little effect on the trends, so safe to assume that they will have little/no effect in the future as well, hence the argument weakens.

C is narrowing on "best jobs" whereas the author's point is about all jobs available, hence C is wrong.
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:24 am

Re: MGMAT - Boomer Retirement

by vish150783 » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:35 am
acecoolan wrote:The anticipated retirement of tens of thousands of baby boomers will create an unprecedented opportunity to move significant numbers of people into career-track jobs at family-supporting incomes. Major industries, from health care and construction to automotive repair, will soon face deep shortages of workers as a result of projected growth and boomer retirements. Fortunately, many of these jobs have relatively low barriers to entry and could be filled by out-of-work young people. To achieve this result, the city government should convene employers and educators to determine how best to create paths of upward mobility in these fields.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

a) Immigration reform will limit the pool of available workers.
b) Government efforts have been shown to affect employment trends only rarely.
c) The best available positions require skills not possessed by the vast majority of the unemployed.
d) A small proportion of baby boomers will not retire as soon as is anticipated.
e) Many out-of-work young people are unaware of these looming employment opportunities.

OA after some discussion
A) OUT OF SCOPE
B) The argument does not discuss government effort but asks government to convene. This statement is a contrast and is not consistent.
C) The best available jobs is not under question. Its majority of the jobs. IRRELEVANT.
D) We are talking of majority not a small proportion.

IMO E. If the young people do not know of these opportunities, How does it matter whether the government comes up with a solution for upward mobility?
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 58
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 8:24 am

Re: MGMAT - Boomer Retirement

by vish150783 » Mon Dec 15, 2008 7:36 am
acecoolan wrote:The anticipated retirement of tens of thousands of baby boomers will create an unprecedented opportunity to move significant numbers of people into career-track jobs at family-supporting incomes. Major industries, from health care and construction to automotive repair, will soon face deep shortages of workers as a result of projected growth and boomer retirements. Fortunately, many of these jobs have relatively low barriers to entry and could be filled by out-of-work young people. To achieve this result, the city government should convene employers and educators to determine how best to create paths of upward mobility in these fields.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?

a) Immigration reform will limit the pool of available workers.
b) Government efforts have been shown to affect employment trends only rarely.
c) The best available positions require skills not possessed by the vast majority of the unemployed.
d) A small proportion of baby boomers will not retire as soon as is anticipated.
e) Many out-of-work young people are unaware of these looming employment opportunities.

OA after some discussion
A) OUT OF SCOPE
B) The argument does not discuss government effort but asks government to convene. This statement is a contrast and is not consistent.
C) The best available jobs is not under question. Its majority of the jobs. IRRELEVANT.
D) We are talking of majority not a small proportion.

IMO E. If the young people do not know of these opportunities, How does it matter whether the government comes up with a solution for upward mobility?
Top
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Nov 17, 2008 11:35 pm
Thanked: 6 times
Followed by:1 members

by brb588 » Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:52 pm
It's definitely B. Vish, having a government convene concerning anything IS a government effort--it is attempting to resolve the employment issue by talking to employers and educators. If things such as this rarely work, then it's a waste of time.

In response to E, I could say to you that I'm having the government meet with employers and educators to look for ways to inform young people about these jobs. This doesn't weaken my argument at all.
Top
User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 516
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 3:22 pm
Thanked: 112 times
Followed by:13 members

by smackmartine » Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:54 pm
I have some concerns over OA B.

One of the major flaws in reasoning is that - If something happened in the Past , it will happen in future too.
Refer to powerscore "Common Flaws in Reasoning" article.
Smack is Back ...
It takes time and effort to explain, so if my comment helped you please press Thanks button :)
Top
Post new topic Post Reply