A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 19 Jan 2017, 19:45

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics
Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 169
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of [#permalink]

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2007, 15:56
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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.
If you have any questions
you can ask an expert
New!
Manager
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 58
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 17 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 169
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2007, 16:37
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 [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 169
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

21 Oct 2007, 17:20
manhattan gmat critical reasoning book
Manager
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 112
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Posts: 1381
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 169
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 51 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 368
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 34 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 112
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 112
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Posts: 763
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 192 [0], given: 0

Re: CR: plz explain answer [#permalink]

### Show Tags

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 Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
9 In a recent study, a building trade group found 8 05 Nov 2015, 21:08
A recent study of Las Vegas clubs showed that out of a large group of 0 05 Sep 2014, 03:30
20 In a recent study, a group of subjects had their normal dail 7 11 Nov 2013, 13:41
1 Research studies have documented that chicken eggs are a 15 01 Jun 2009, 13:30
CR - Groups' Autonomy Study 8 25 Apr 2007, 23:44
Display posts from previous: Sort by

# A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of

 new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics

 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®.