• NEW! FREE Beat The GMAT Quizzes
Hundreds of Questions Highly Detailed Reporting Expert Explanations
• 7 CATs FREE!
If you earn 100 Forum Points

Engage in the Beat The GMAT forums to earn
100 points for $49 worth of Veritas practice GMATs FREE VERITAS PRACTICE GMAT EXAMS Earn 10 Points Per Post Earn 10 Points Per Thanks Earn 10 Points Per Upvote ## weakening argument tagged by: ##### This topic has 2 expert replies and 13 member replies Goto page • 1, • 2 ## weakening argument Quote: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any workerâ€™s income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement. Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial? A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families. B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has. C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed. D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level. E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work. OA C Can someone explain the logic behind this answer choice? Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts Joined 08 Jan 2010 Posted: 77 messages Upvotes: 2 GMAT Score: 700 I think that if one is currently employed with wage X with a company and leaves his present job to join another company, his new wage will be more than X. So there lies a possibility that with every job switch, he will have an increase in wage. Legendary Member Joined 31 Jan 2010 Posted: 748 messages Followed by: 3 members Upvotes: 46 "To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance" .... "the supplement will not raise any workerâ€™s income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed" C states people who are employed and look for a new job tend can incirease their income rather than being unempoyed. for instance once you get enough experience you can try for another job _________________ ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- General blog https://amarnaik.wordpress.com MBA blog https://amarrnaik.blogspot.com/ Legendary Member Joined 14 Sep 2008 Posted: 1261 messages Upvotes: 27 Target GMAT Score: 801 GMAT Score: 570 I didn't understand the passage, can somebody explain it in detail What is supplement and what is gainfully employed???? jsasipriya wrote: Quote: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any workerâ€™s income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement. Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial? A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families. B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has. C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed. D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level. E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work. OA C Can someone explain the logic behind this answer choice? _________________ Sudhanshu (have lot of things to learn from all of you) Legendary Member Joined 28 Apr 2010 Posted: 1172 messages Followed by: 4 members Upvotes: 74 Test Date: ï£¿ Target GMAT Score: ï£¿ GMAT Score: ï£¿ Supplement in this context: The government gives people without jobs$200 per week to help pay for food/shelter and so forth.

Gainfully employed really just means having a decent job that pays.

_________________
Yep.

Legendary Member
Joined
14 Sep 2008
Posted:
1261 messages
27
Target GMAT Score:
801
GMAT Score:
570
thanks.....

In that case how C weakens the passage?

C talks about employeed ppl and passage talks abt unemployed ppl

uwhusky wrote:
Supplement in this context: The government gives people without jobs $200 per week to help pay for food/shelter and so forth. Gainfully employed really just means having a decent job that pays. _________________ Sudhanshu (have lot of things to learn from all of you) ### GMAT/MBA Expert GMAT Instructor Joined 03 Jul 2008 Posted: 1031 messages Followed by: 253 members Upvotes: 716 GMAT Score: 750 Good question, reply2spg: One important thing to note about Weaken questions is that the correct answer can either: -Directly refute the conclusion -Demonstrate that the premises can be true but that there is an alternate explanation other than the conclusion Here, choice C provides that alternate explanation to the idea that "there is no incentive for people to select these jobs". The incentive is that, once they've worked at these jobs, they have a much higher chance of landing a better-paying job. Sure, they won't benefit immediately with a higher pay rate, but there is another benefit that provides that incentive. I'd fixate in this case on the word "no" in "...no incentive". That's a pretty aggressive statement. If we can find just one incentive, that overrules "no incentive", and choice C provides just that (however indirect) incentive. _________________ Brian Galvin GMAT Instructor Director of Academic Programs Veritas Prep Looking for GMAT practice questions? Try out the Veritas Prep Question Bank. Learn More. Enroll in a Veritas Prep GMAT class completely for FREE. Wondering if a GMAT course is right for you? Attend the first class session of an actual GMAT course, either in-person or live online, and see for yourself why so many students choose to work with Veritas Prep. Find a class now! Legendary Member Joined 13 Apr 2010 Posted: 995 messages Followed by: 1 members Upvotes: 31 Brian@VeritasPrep wrote: Good question, reply2spg: One important thing to note about Weaken questions is that the correct answer can either: -Directly refute the conclusion -Demonstrate that the premises can be true but that there is an alternate explanation other than the conclusion Here, choice C provides that alternate explanation to the idea that "there is no incentive for people to select these jobs". The incentive is that, once they've worked at these jobs, they have a much higher chance of landing a better-paying job. Sure, they won't benefit immediately with a higher pay rate, but there is another benefit that provides that incentive. I'd fixate in this case on the word "no" in "...no incentive". That's a pretty aggressive statement. If we can find just one incentive, that overrules "no incentive", and choice C provides just that (however indirect) incentive. Brian, In C, don't you think that we are assuming to much which is generally not allowed in GMAT. The statement is saying only about the people who are employed, I don't think that we should assume : unemployed people will get the low paying job in the hope that they will get a better job later. instead E is looking a better option. People sometime accepts the job because they enjoy it. So we have some other incentive for the job here : No extra assumption. What's wrong here ? please explain. Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts Joined 17 Jul 2009 Posted: 292 messages Followed by: 1 members Upvotes: 6 Brian@VeritasPrep wrote: Good question, reply2spg: One important thing to note about Weaken questions is that the correct answer can either: -Directly refute the conclusion -Demonstrate that the premises can be true but that there is an alternate explanation other than the conclusion Here, choice C provides that alternate explanation to the idea that "there is no incentive for people to select these jobs". The incentive is that, once they've worked at these jobs, they have a much higher chance of landing a better-paying job. Sure, they won't benefit immediately with a higher pay rate, but there is another benefit that provides that incentive. I'd fixate in this case on the word "no" in "...no incentive". That's a pretty aggressive statement. If we can find just one incentive, that overrules "no incentive", and choice C provides just that (however indirect) incentive. Brain, A also gives indication about 'kind of incentives' unemployed people get in terms of 'no taxes' - This should also weaken the argument. Pls help Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts Joined 20 Jul 2010 Posted: 39 messages I am not sure if i am answering your question, but the fnal conclusion says Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement. Now from the options given in the question, only option C shows some kind of incentive for employess who draw lesser salary and require government's intervention in the form of suplementing their income . These employees get a higher pay as compared to unemployed group when they shift jobs. I hope this answers your confusion Regards, Mani Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts Joined 22 Feb 2015 Posted: 93 messages Followed by: 2 members Upvotes: 4 What the editorial says is: Suppose government assistance for unemployed adults is$10/hour

Now, the new proposal is: If this unemployed adult accepts a job that pays less than government assistance (say this unemployed adult accepts a job that pays $8/hour), then the government would contribute$2/hour, so that this person's total income is $10/hour. If we really look at it, for this unemployed adult, i) If he doesn't work at all, then he gets$10/hour
ii) If he works, then also he gets $10/hour ($8/hour from his employer + $2/hour from Government) So, if there is no difference in this person's income whether he works or does not work, the argument concludes that this person has no incentive to work. We have to weaken this conclusion. This is what C does. It says that this person, if he is working, is more likely to get a higher-paying job (say$12/hour) than if he is not working. That being the case, there is obviously an incentive for this currently unemployed person to take up even a low paying job right now, because taking up a current low paying job will basically brighten his future prospects (of getting a high paying job).

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Joined
07 Sep 2015
Posted:
17 messages
Followed by:
1 members
1
bonetlobo wrote:
What the editorial says is:

Suppose government assistance for unemployed adults is $10/hour Let's take an unemployed adult. Now, the new proposal is: If this unemployed adult accepts a job that pays less than government assistance (say this unemployed adult accepts a job that pays$8/hour), then the government would contribute $2/hour, so that this person's total income is$10/hour.

If we really look at it, for this unemployed adult,
i) If he doesn't work at all, then he gets $10/hour ii) If he works, then also he gets$10/hour ($8/hour from his employer +$2/hour from Government)

So, if there is no difference in this person's income whether he works or does not work, the argument concludes that this person has no incentive to work.

We have to weaken this conclusion.

This is what C does. It says that this person, if he is working, is more likely to get a higher-paying job (say $12/hour) than if he is not working. That being the case, there is obviously an incentive for this currently unemployed person to take up even a low paying job right now, because taking up a current low paying job will basically brighten his future prospects (of getting a high paying job). Don't think that this reasoning is correct. The conclusion of the argument says that the unemployed adult has no financial incentive to accept a job in which he will get government assistance. (Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement). The argument is not just talking about the unemployed adult taking any job. From the conclusion of the argument, I think the comparison is between jobs in which the person will get government assistance and jobs in which he will not get government assistance. And the argument says that there is no incentive in taking jobs in which he gets the government supplement. I am stumped by this question. As per me, the credited answer, which is C, does not weaken the argument. It could hold true in both cases - whether he joins a job in which he gets the supplement or a job in which he doesn't. To me, A looks reasonable (though not perfect). If there are no taxes on the supplement for "unemployed people" and assuming that there is no tax on supplement even when the person is employed, then there is a financial incentive to take up a job "that would entitle him to the supplement". I am totally stumped by this question - can experts please point to something that I am missing? Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts Joined 07 Sep 2015 Posted: 17 messages Followed by: 1 members Upvotes: 1 sidchilling wrote: bonetlobo wrote: What the editorial says is: Suppose government assistance for unemployed adults is$10/hour

Now, the new proposal is: If this unemployed adult accepts a job that pays less than government assistance (say this unemployed adult accepts a job that pays $8/hour), then the government would contribute$2/hour, so that this person's total income is $10/hour. If we really look at it, for this unemployed adult, i) If he doesn't work at all, then he gets$10/hour
ii) If he works, then also he gets $10/hour ($8/hour from his employer + $2/hour from Government) So, if there is no difference in this person's income whether he works or does not work, the argument concludes that this person has no incentive to work. We have to weaken this conclusion. This is what C does. It says that this person, if he is working, is more likely to get a higher-paying job (say$12/hour) than if he is not working. That being the case, there is obviously an incentive for this currently unemployed person to take up even a low paying job right now, because taking up a current low paying job will basically brighten his future prospects (of getting a high paying job).
Don't think that this reasoning is correct. The conclusion of the argument says that the unemployed adult has no financial incentive to accept a job in which he will get government assistance. (Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement). The argument is not just talking about the unemployed adult taking any job.

From the conclusion of the argument, I think the comparison is between jobs in which the person will get government assistance and jobs in which he will not get government assistance. And the argument says that there is no incentive in taking jobs in which he gets the government supplement.

I am stumped by this question. As per me, the credited answer, which is C, does not weaken the argument. It could hold true in both cases - whether he joins a job in which he gets the supplement or a job in which he doesn't.

To me, A looks reasonable (though not perfect). If there are no taxes on the supplement for "unemployed people" and assuming that there is no tax on supplement even when the person is employed, then there is a financial incentive to take up a job "that would entitle him to the supplement".

I am totally stumped by this question - can experts please point to something that I am missing?
On thinking again, I think that the scope of argument is just jobs in which you get the supplement and so C looks correct. Really tricky. One could argue that unemployed people will not get jobs which pay higher than the assistance else they would not remain un-employed in the first place. Again, I think this question is really tricky.

Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
Joined
01 Jul 2015
Posted:
18 messages
1
GMAT Score:
720
Can anyone explain why D is not a correct choice.
I think I am not able to understand it correctly.

It states that the financial assistance that the government provides to the people who have no other income or unemployed people is less than the average starting wage. As per this choice, the adults will indeed opt for jobs since their pay will be higher. What am I missing here ??

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Joined
05 Dec 2015
Posted:
120 messages
Target GMAT Score:
720
I was stuck between A and D on the test.

Can someone explain why A is not a weakener, please.

• Get 300+ Practice Questions

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 1 Hour Free
BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Magoosh
Study with Magoosh GMAT prep

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5-Day Free Trial
5-day free, full-access trial TTP Quant

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• 5 Day FREE Trial
Study Smarter, Not Harder

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Veritas GMAT Class
Experience Lesson 1 Live Free

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• Free Practice Test & Review
How would you score if you took the GMAT

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

• FREE GMAT Exam
Know how you'd score today for $0 Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Free Trial & Practice Exam BEAT THE GMAT EXCLUSIVE Available with Beat the GMAT members only code • Award-winning private GMAT tutoring Register now and save up to$200

Available with Beat the GMAT members only code

### Top First Responders*

1 Ian Stewart 44 first replies
2 Brent@GMATPrepNow 34 first replies
3 Scott@TargetTestPrep 32 first replies
4 Jay@ManhattanReview 31 first replies
5 GMATGuruNY 18 first replies
* Only counts replies to topics started in last 30 days
See More Top Beat The GMAT Members

### Most Active Experts

1 Scott@TargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep

139 posts
2 Max@Math Revolution

Math Revolution

90 posts
3 Ian Stewart

GMATiX Teacher

53 posts
4 Brent@GMATPrepNow

GMAT Prep Now Teacher

51 posts
5 Jay@ManhattanReview

Manhattan Review

31 posts
See More Top Beat The GMAT Experts