|
Author |
Message |
|
TAGS:
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 172
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of [#permalink]
 21 Oct 2007, 16:56
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 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
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 58
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
0
[0], given: 0
|
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
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 172
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
thx but correct answer given is D. i just dont understand why D is right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 112
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
jimjohn wrote: thx but correct answer given is D. i just dont understand why D is right.
Where is the question from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 172
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
manhattan gmat critical reasoning book
|
|
|
|
|
|
Manager
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 112
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
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
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 1396
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
14
[0], given: 0
|
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
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 172
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
4
[0], given: 0
|
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
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 371
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
19
[0], given: 0
|
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
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 112
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
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
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 112
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
1
[0], given: 0
|
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
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 776
Followers: 1
Kudos [?]:
18
[0], given: 0
|
Re: CR: plz explain answer [#permalink]
22 Oct 2007, 00:01
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]
22 Oct 2007, 00:01
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similar topics |
Author |
Replies |
Last post |
|
Similar
Topics:
|
 |
|
|
Recently document examples of neurogenesis, the production
|
rigger |
4 |
23 Oct 2005, 20:10 |
 |
|
|
Recently documented examples of neurogenesis, the production
|
Matador |
0 |
28 Aug 2012, 21:52 |
 |
|
|
Recently documented examples of neurgoenesis, the production
|
alimad |
10 |
10 Oct 2007, 08:15 |
|
|
|
|
Recently documented examples of neurogenesis, the production
|
japped187 |
0 |
14 May 2008, 20:21 |
|
|
|
|
Recently documented examples of neurogenesis, the production
|
lexis |
0 |
21 May 2008, 17:29 |
|
|
|
|
|
Moderators:
metallicafan, rajeevrks27, souvik101990, PTK, MacFauz, noboru, kissthegmat, carcass, willigetmylifeback, mikemcgarry, doe007, Vercules, Legendaddy, tuanquang269, RaviChandra, Marcab, Narenn
|
close
