To strengthen an argument, the answer needs to make it more convincing. So the right answer will give us reason to believe that companies will eventually pay for these layoffs either through taxes or through unemployment insurance payments. The answer is A. I go through the question in detail in the full solution below (taken from the GMATFix App).



-Patrick

LulaBrazilia wrote:In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipment in order to save money. However, many workers who lose their jobs to automation will need government assistance to survive, and the same corporations that are laying people off will eventually pay for that assistance through increased taxes and unemployment insurance payments.

Employees ----- > Replace by Robots to save money

Lay Off employees need Government Support for survival and Companies have to spend on various other costs.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the author's argument?

(A) Many workers who have already lost their jobs to automation have been unable to find new jobs.

Might be true .

The passage talks about unemployment Insurance etc...

Further if Automation is the need of the hour then lay off employees will find it difficult to secure jobs elsewhere as well.

Let's keep it for further consideration and check for the other available answer choices.

(B) Many corporations that have failed to automate have seen their profits decline.

Out of scope and irrelevant we are interested in strengthening the conclusion that automation costs are more than equal to manual labor.

(C) Taxes and unemployment insurance are paid also by corporations that are not automating.

Irrelevant.

(D) Most of the new jobs created by automation pay less than the jobs eliminated by automation did.

Out of scope.

(E) The initial investment in machinery for automation is often greater than the short-term savings in labor costs.

We are talking about Costs after installation of Automated technology and Labor Costs and Employment Condition of Lay off laborers.


Thus IMO (A) looks better than the rest.

Hence IMO (A)

To strengthen the conclusion, we need further evidence that these workers won't be able to support themselves. (After all, if you get fired, it isn't necessarily permanent!) So anything that suggests that the government will have to support these unemployed workers -- and/or will pass the cost of supporting these workers onto corporations in the form of higher taxes -- is a good answer.

(A) gives us exactly what we want: these workers haven't been able to find new jobs, so they presumably don't have income, so they'll probably need government support.

(B) doesn't suggest that corporations will have to pay for their former workers - irrelevant.

(C) is also irrelevant - our conclusion refers to the corporations that ARE laying people off, not the ones that AREN'T.

(D) isn't a terrible answer. If the new jobs pay less, the workers might apply for some form of government assistance. Remember, though, that the prompt asks for the answer that MOST STRENGTHENS the argument. (A) is better than (D), as (A) suggests the workers may have NO income, which would require MORE government assistance.

(E) is totally irrelevant.