Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce
unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept
jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers
cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker’s income above what
government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore,
unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them
to the supplement. Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously
weakens the argument of the editorial?
A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and
B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay
an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.
C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job
seekers who are unemployed.
D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the
yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.
E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.
Can an expert please explain why C is the answer
according to A if the gov collects no taxes for the unemployed it is a financial incentive so it weakens the argument/conclusion where itt states that the unemployed have no Financial incentive with this
I would go with C because in the overall argument it would prove that the unemployed get lower paying jobs hence no financial incentive
Please explain and thankyou for your help and time....
Responding to a pm:
The question is about financial incentives.
This is what the situation is: Say, the govt pays $400/week to the unemployed. Someone who is getting less than $400/week in a job will not work. He will instead like to be unemployed and receive $400. Now, the govt is planning to supplement the income of people who get less than $400. Say, if you get $300/week, the govt will give you $100 to make it $400 but not more than $400.
Conclusion: Unemployed people will have no financial incentive
to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.
Makes sense, right? Whether you work or you don't you still make only $400. So you might have other incentives to work e.g. you like work etc but you don't have a financial incentive to work. What will weaken this conclusion? It will be weakened if you can find a financial incentive that will make people work.
(C) says that people who are already employed get better pay if they switch jobs (as compared to those who are unemployed). This could be a financial incentive for people to take up jobs. They take low paying jobs right now but still get $400 (after adding govt supplement) and later switch and get better paying jobs, possibly jobs that pay more than $400. Hence, this option gives us a financial incentive.
(A) actually strengthens the argument, if at all.
A - "The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families."
If the govt collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals, the unemployed will get $400/week. But the employed will pay taxes on their salary ($300) and may not pay taxes on $100 of govt assistance but overall they will make less than $400. So there is certainly no financial incentive to work. Instead, you make less money if you work. This makes a better case for the author's opinion which is "unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs"
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
Save 10% on Veritas Prep GMAT Courses And Admissions Consulting
Enroll now. Pay later. Take advantage of Veritas Prep's flexible payment plan options.
Veritas Prep Reviews