Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 20 Dec 2014, 12:51

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 170
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2007, 15:56
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of people who had graduated from college in 1985 found an interesting relationship between income and educational attainement: Participants who had completed doctoral or post-doctoral work earned less, in 2005, than did those people who had only completed master's degrees. On the basis of these findings, a prominent essayist contended that obtaining educatio beyond a master's degree had thereby lowered the participants' 2005 incomes.

Which of the following is an assumption made by the essayist?

A) Those who had only completed doctoral work had a higher average income in 2005 than did those who had also completed post-doctoral work.

B) For each year between 1985 and 2005, the average income of those who had, by 2005, earned a doctorate was lower than that of those who had, by 2005, earned only a master's degree.

C) The 2005 average income of those with no graduate training was lower than that of those who had completed doctoral or post-doctoral work.

D) Working in less lucrative fields such as educatio did not lead people to obtain doctoral or post-doctoral education.

E) Those who had earned master's degrees did not enter the teaching profession.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 58
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2007, 16:17
IMO answer is B.

The premise tells us that :

Masters Salary > Post doctorate salary

However the conclusion is that :

(1) Masters Salary > Doctorate Salary
(2) Masters Salary > Post doctorate salary

(2) is stated in the premise, so assumption is:

Masters Salary > Doctorate Salary

B. correctly points out the assumption.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 170
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2007, 16:37
thx but correct answer given is D. i just dont understand why D is right.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 112
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2007, 16:40
jimjohn wrote:
thx but correct answer given is D. i just dont understand why D is right.


Where is the question from?
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 170
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2007, 17:20
manhattan gmat critical reasoning book
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 112
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2007, 17:27
jimjohn wrote:
manhattan gmat critical reasoning book


Throw it away, maybe not the strategies but definetely the wannabe problems. Study from Official LSAT or GMAT questions. They are muc more straight forward.
VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 1386
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2007, 18:24
Does D even come under the scope of the question?

If I negate B the conclusion falls apart and I vote for B too...

Not sure if my reasoning is right...Waiting for CRs gurus to chip in
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 170
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2007, 18:43
well heres the explanation in the book for why b is wrong and why d is right. i dont understand it though.

B) The argument does not need to make assumptions about incomes prior to 2005, since its conclusion focuses on 2005 incomes.

D) Correct. The essayist's argument must assume that alternative causal explanations, specifically the reverse cause-effect relationship, cannot account for the low wages of those who had earned doctorates.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 370
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 23 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2007, 19:43
jimjohn wrote:
well heres the explanation in the book for why b is wrong and why d is right. i dont understand it though.

B) The argument does not need to make assumptions about incomes prior to 2005, since its conclusion focuses on 2005 incomes.

D) Correct. The essayist's argument must assume that alternative causal explanations, specifically the reverse cause-effect relationship, cannot account for the low wages of those who had earned doctorates.


This is of the kind - alternative causal relationship.

A --> B so you have to eliminate the possibility of
B-->A

So if getting a higher ed --> caused them to earn lower income

so its not the less lucrative field --> drove them to get higher ed.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 112
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2007, 19:45
jimjohn wrote:
well heres the explanation in the book for why b is wrong and why d is right. i dont understand it though.

B) The argument does not need to make assumptions about incomes prior to 2005, since its conclusion focuses on 2005 incomes.

D) Correct. The essayist's argument must assume that alternative causal explanations, specifically the reverse cause-effect relationship, cannot account for the low wages of those who had earned doctorates.


D is a horrible answer just like almost every answer MGMAT comes up with. MGMAT's CR questions are horrible because they make you assume way to much to get to an answer. For this particular answer you would have to make a couple of assumptions just to be able to assume that this is an assumption. Then once you made all of the assumptions just to make this assumption you could come up with many other reasons to shoot down all of the assumptions. D has nothing to do with a reverse cause and effect relationship. The answer is wrong and the explanation they give is worse.

Dont stress about this one and do like I said and throw the book away. Go buy "The Next 10 LSAT" book, it will give you 500 legitimate CR questions. While your at it buytPowerScores LR Bible.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 112
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2007, 19:50
JDMBA wrote:
jimjohn wrote:
well heres the explanation in the book for why b is wrong and why d is right. i dont understand it though.

B) The argument does not need to make assumptions about incomes prior to 2005, since its conclusion focuses on 2005 incomes.

D) Correct. The essayist's argument must assume that alternative causal explanations, specifically the reverse cause-effect relationship, cannot account for the low wages of those who had earned doctorates.


D is a horrible answer just like almost every answer MGMAT comes up with. MGMAT's CR questions are horrible because they make you assume way to much to get to an answer. For this particular answer you would have to make a couple of assumptions just to be able to assume that this is an assumption. Then once you made all of the assumptions just to make this assumption you could come up with many other reasons to shoot down all of the assumptions. D has nothing to do with a reverse cause and effect relationship. The answer is wrong and the explanation they give is worse.

Dont stress about this one and do like I said and throw the book away. Go buy "The Next 10 LSAT" book, it will give you 500 legitimate CR questions. While your at it buytPowerScores LR Bible.



obtaining education beyond a master's degree in 1985->lowered the participants' 2005 incomes

lower participants' 2005 incomes->obtain education beyond a master's degree in 1985

Its just wrong. What someone did prior to receiving a degree in 1985 has nothing to do with 2005 salaries.

Negate it and it does nothing to the validity of the argument.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 767
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: plz explain answer [#permalink] New post 21 Oct 2007, 23:01
jimjohn wrote:
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of people who had graduated from college in 1985 found an interesting relationship between income and educational attainement: Participants who had completed doctoral or post-doctoral work earned less, in 2005, than did those people who had only completed master's degrees. On the basis of these findings, a prominent essayist contended that obtaining educatio beyond a master's degree had thereby lowered the participants' 2005 incomes.

Which of the following is an assumption made by the essayist?

A) Those who had only completed doctoral work had a higher average income in 2005 than did those who had also completed post-doctoral work.
'
B) For each year between 1985 and 2005, the average income of those who had, by 2005, earned a doctorate was lower than that of those who had, by 2005, earned only a master's degree.

C) The 2005 average income of those with no graduate training was lower than that of those who had completed doctoral or post-doctoral work.

D) Working in less lucrative fields such as educatio did not lead people to obtain doctoral or post-doctoral education.

E) Those who had earned master's degrees did not enter the teaching profession.


I was contesting b/w B & D but finally picked D because it makes more sense.

Premise: 'Participants who had completed doctoral or post-doctoral work earned less, in 2005, than did those people who had only completed master's degrees.'

Conclusion: Therefore, studying beyond Master's lowered the participants' 2005 incomes.

First thing that flashed across my mind was that the author is assuming that people with a degree higher than an MA, do not chose less lucrative fields. Were this true (that people with higher degrees chose less lucrative fields) the argument would fall apart.

Choice D correctly states that working in fields that pay less led some folks to pursue a higher degree (than MA) in the first place. Therefore, the field, and not the degree is the cause for lesser earnings.
Re: CR: plz explain answer   [#permalink] 21 Oct 2007, 23:01
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
A recent study of Las Vegas clubs showed that out of a large group of AmoyV 0 05 Sep 2014, 03:30
11 Experts publish their posts in the topic In a recent study, a group of subjects had their normal dail dentobizz 5 11 Nov 2013, 13:41
Recently documented examples of neurgoenesis, the production alimad 10 10 Oct 2007, 07:15
Recently documented examples of neurogenesis, the production Matador 0 28 Aug 2012, 20:52
Recently document examples of neurogenesis, the production rigger 4 23 Oct 2005, 19:10
Display posts from previous: Sort by

A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


cron

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.