A developer wants to build a shopping mall in a mostly rural area of

The premise of the argument contends that the construction will bring jobs into a city where the unemployment is higher than the national average. The fact of the stimulus is that the construction will take place in a rural city somewhere. So, indeed the link between the rural city and high-unemployment is required in order to strengthen the argument. Furthermore, Answer C would be neutral effect if the construction of the mall was proposed in another city where unemployment was the same as the national average.

Answer D.

The argument doesn't really mentions anything about the stores or the retailers. Hence, we can rule that as out of scope. The bone of contention could be between options D and E, but D clearly talks about how malls will directly affect the unemployment rates in the area.

Reg. C, the verbal agreements need not guarantee corresponding action by the retailers. Also, C doesn't help answer why the mall cannot be opened in any other part of the city without ensuring similar benefits.

Dear damamikus,
I totaly agree with your reasoning, it resembles quite closely a real business situation. The problem is, and it is most frustrating, that gmat authors have no idea how real world business works. They want you constuct a bridge between A and B providing you with answer options that try to decieve you in all conceivable ways. Ironically, you aspire to be enrolled to MBA prog. by answering gmat CR questions written by people who do not even know what the critical reasoning in real world is. All that they can advise you: just make it simple, if a point is not mentioned in the argument - rule it out.
This simplistic way of solving problems is very simmilar to the way bureaucracy works, which tries to oversimplify the real world to A and B.
I don't want to hurt somebody, but sometimes gmat qustions are completely idiotic.
All mentioned above is not related to the gmatclub authors in any way. Thank you very much for the chance to practice here.
After 10 years in business it may be hard to tolerate this kind of absurd.

@veeritasprepKarishma : Just agreeing on the point that "yes, there is an employment." how would you justify that mall is actually doing something about reducing unemployment. It is just restatement of the premises given.

Conclusion can only be strengthened if it indicates mall owner's plan to hire people for close-by area. The city’s largest percentage of unemployed people lives in the rural area where the proposed shopping mall would be built. => By this you only location of mall, which we already now. (now more specific location.)

The developer has already obtained verbal agreements from several retailers who plan to open stores in the future shopping mall. => C is not irrelevant. You want outside information that give you hints how it will impact employment. Shopping mall owner are making local tie-up that will help in generating employment. (although it's not very specific but still)

Pl advise

"several retailers" does not imply local tie-ups. They could all be foreign brands. This option just increases the probability of the mall becoming successful. Again, as I said before, what you need to evaluate is what will happen if the mall is successful. You have to think about the case post success. You don't have to evaluate the probability of the mall becoming successful.
This is a conditional conclusion question which does trick many people. Check out this post:
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2012/11 ... onclusion/

On the other hand,

(D) The city’s largest percentage of unemployed people lives in the rural area where the proposed shopping mall would be built.
The mall, if successful, will ultimately benefit the city by creating jobs in a place where the unemployment rate is slightly higher than the national average

(D) makes sense. Jobs will be created in a place where unemployment rate is higher because the mall is coming up in a place where unemployment is higher. So it is likely that the city will benefit.

We need to strengthen the argument which means we need to strengthen the conclusion (the petition)
The petition: "the permit should be granted because the shopping mall, if successful, will ultimately benefit the city by creating jobs in a place where the unemployment rate is slightly higher than the national average"

The petition is that IF the mall is successful, the city will benefit. To strengthen it, we need to prove that if the mall is successful, the city will ACTUALLY benefit. Whether the mall will be successful or not is not the point. Anything that strengthens the possibility that the mall will be successful is irrelevant to this particular argument.
The petition is telling you what will happen in case mall is successful. There is no point arguing whether the mall will be successful or not. We have to focus on what will happen if the mall IS successful.
(C) increases the possibility that the mall will be successful. It doesn't tell us how the success will benefit the city.

(D) tells you that the area has high unemployment so if the mall is successful, it increases the possibility that the city will benefit from the mall.

Hence answer is (D)[/quote]

@veeritasprepKarishma : Just agreeing on the point that "yes, there is an employment." how would you justify that mall is actually doing something about reducing unemployment. It is just restatement of the premises given.

Conclusion can only be strengthened if it indicates mall owner's plan to hire people for close-by area. The city’s largest percentage of unemployed people lives in the rural area where the proposed shopping mall would be built. => By this you only location of mall, which we already now. (now more specific location.)

The developer has already obtained verbal agreements from several retailers who plan to open stores in the future shopping mall. => C is not irrelevant. You want outside information that give you hints how it will impact employment. Shopping mall owner are making local tie-up that will help in generating employment. (although it's not very specific but still)

Pl advise[/quote]

"several retailers" does not imply local tie-ups. They could all be foreign brands. This option just increases the probability of the mall becoming successful. Again, as I said before, what you need to evaluate is what will happen if the mall is successful. You have to think about the case post success. You don't have to evaluate the probability of the mall becoming successful.
This is a conditional conclusion question which does trick many people. Check out this post:
https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2012/11 ... onclusion/

On the other hand,

(D) The city’s largest percentage of unemployed people lives in the rural area where the proposed shopping mall would be built.
The mall, if successful, will ultimately benefit the city by creating jobs in a place where the unemployment rate is slightly higher than the national average

(D) makes sense. Jobs will be created in a place where unemployment rate is higher because the mall is coming up in a place where unemployment is higher. So it is likely that the city will benefit.[/quote]

Hi Karishma,
How can E not strengthen the developer's argument.I feel D is already stated in the premise.
if successful, will ultimately benefit the city by creating jobs in a place where the unemployment rate is slightly higher than the national average.
Option E states that the city will benefit as the sales tax revenue will directly go the city. Thus the councilor gets another notion to support building the mall.

Hi Karishma,
How can E not strengthen the developer's argument.I feel D is already stated in the premise.
if successful, will ultimately benefit the city by creating jobs in a place where the unemployment rate is slightly higher than the national average.
Option E states that the city will benefit as the sales tax revenue will directly go the city. Thus the councilor gets another notion to support building the mall.

Dear Experts,
Regarding D: The city???s largest percentage of unemployed people lives in the rural area where the proposed shopping mall would be built.
Isnt the information already stated in the premise that the area has a higher % of unemployment, i though option C, which makes us believe that after the mall opens it will really create jobs. Please help me understand this logic.

Regards,

I have the same question! Isn't the OA restating what has already been mentioned in the passage?
daagh, VeritasKarishma or GMATNinja please help..

No, option (D) is not restating the premise. There is a subtle difference.

The conclusion says that the mall will ultimately benefit the city.
(by creating jobs in a place where the unemployment rate is slightly higher than the national average.)

The 'place' being talked about could be the rural area or the city. In any case, it says that the unemployment rate is higher than the national average.

Option (D) tells us that the city's largest percentage of unemployed live in this rural area. So the concentration of unemployed within the city is highest in the rural area. So the mall is likely to help the city (which strengthens our conclusion). This information would have helped our conclusion even if the unemployment rate in the area was lower than the national average.

Hi, I agree that all other answer choices are wrong... but I believe (D) isn't great either.
(D) just tells us that we have a ton of unemployed people here. I guess this is already stated in the premise. How does this choice strengthen the argument?
I'm confused