Contrary to the statements of labor leaders, the central economic problem facing America today is not the distribution of wealth. It is productivity. With the productivity of U.S. industry stagnant, or even declining slightly, the economic pie is no longer growing. Labor leaders, of course, point to what they consider an unfair distribution of the slices of pie to justify their demands for further increases in wages and benefits. And in the past, when the pie was still growing, management could afford to acquiesce. No longer. Until productivity resumes its growth, there can be no justification for further increases in the compensation of workers.
Which of the following statements by a labor leader focuses on the logical weakness in the argument above?
(A) Although the economic pie is no longer growing, the portion of the pie allocated to American workers remains unjustly small.
(B) If management fails to accommodate the demands of workers, labor leaders will be forced to call strikes that will cripple the operation of industry.
(C) Although productivity is stagnant, the U.S. population is growing, so that the absolute size of the economic pie continues to grow as well.
(D) As a labor leader, I can be concerned only with the needs of working people, not with the problems faced by management.
(E) The stagnation of U.S. industry has been caused largely by factors—such as foreign competition—beyond the control of American workers.
_________________

The sky is the limit
800 is the limit

Find out what's new at GMAT Club - latest features and updates

narrowed it down to A & E

Will go with A. Obviously better choice than E
_________________

Success is my Destiny

me too ... A.

Argument states: Contrary to the statements of labor leaders, the problem ... is not distribution of wealth.
Meaning: Labor leaders claim that the distribution of wealth is the actual problem.

The argument is against the Labor leaders, so to weaken the argument, we should strengthen the Labor leaders' claim. Which option 'A' does.

IMO: A
_________________

But there’s something in me that just keeps going on. I think it has something to do with tomorrow, that there is always one, and that everything can change when it comes.
http://aimingformba.blogspot.com

Unable to understand this one, everything going above the head

Will go with A.

The ans should be (C). Premise in the question is "With the productivity of U.S. industry stagnant, or even declining slightly, the economic pie is no longer growing" and therefore no increments can be paid to the workers.

Howver, argument (C) challenges the premises stating that though productivity is same, the economic pie is increasing with the increase in population. Argument (A) just re-states the fact aleady mentioned in the passage.

IMO answer hsould be A.
What is OA??
_________________

Cheers,
Varun

If you like my post, give me KUDOS!!

Well, C challenges part of the reasoning of the management. But still fails to make its point. If there is more population, then the new workers are already getting salary, and for management, more workers still increases the cost of operations. And C admits that the productivity is not increasing. Since management states that it will increase salaries only when productivity will grow, then C fails to weaken the reasoning.
But A points at another reason. The workers deserve better compensation because they are unjustly receiving a small portion of the pie. For me, this is a much stronger reason.

A for me too.................

C..no for it because .........how come increase in population increase "economic" pie .....I feel its far fetched