Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club App Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 09 Dec 2016, 20:35

### 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

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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 138
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 162 [1] , given: 97

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2012, 06:46
1
KUDOS
6
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

64% (02:30) correct 36% (01:59) wrong based on 493 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

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 their families.
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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

Last edited by reto on 19 Aug 2015, 02:23, edited 1 time in total.
format and style
If you have any questions
New!
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7076
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2089

Kudos [?]: 13305 [11] , given: 222

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2012, 20:33
11
KUDOS
Expert's post
venmic wrote:
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
their families.
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.

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

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 incentiveto 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" _________________ Karishma Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor My Blog Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Moderator
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3033
Followers: 768

Kudos [?]: 6344 [1] , given: 991

### Show Tags

03 Sep 2012, 08:12
1
KUDOS
A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and
their families.
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.

i do not see any reason why C is not the answer

A) The fact that the goverment do not collect taxes NOt weaken the argument at all

B) out of scope

D) We do not care about is less than

E) This is not a reason to take a job and not weaken the argument

C) Wins

if you take a job then you can change your job and take another JOB payed better

_________________
Director
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 509
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Followers: 43

Kudos [?]: 245 [1] , given: 269

### Show Tags

11 Sep 2012, 23:09
1
KUDOS
Premise - 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

Conclusion - unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement

Anything which weakens the conclusion is the answer i.e any option which proves that the people will have financial incentive is our answer

_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 138
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 61 [0], given: 11

### Show Tags

17 Sep 2012, 21:32
venmic wrote:
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
their families.
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.

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

This was a good one ! I could land up on C only using the POE however, Karishma has explained it very well.
_________________

You want something, go get it . Period !

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10444
Followers: 886

Kudos [?]: 191 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

02 Oct 2013, 04:36
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
Intern
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 0 [0], given: 9

### Show Tags

23 Nov 2013, 20:09
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 their families.

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 financial assistance that the govt provides to people who have no other income is less than average starting wage.

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

The argument is same but one of the options is changed. The OA is still C but what is wrong with D.
In option D the unemployed has incentive to take up jobs as the assistance provided is less than the average starting wage.
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7076
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 2089

Kudos [?]: 13305 [0], given: 222

### Show Tags

24 Nov 2013, 19:43
sr2013 wrote:
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 their families.

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 financial assistance that the govt provides to people who have no other income is less than average starting wage.

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

The argument is same but one of the options is changed. The OA is still C but what is wrong with D.
In option D the unemployed has incentive to take up jobs as the assistance provided is less than the average starting wage.

Supplement will be paid to people whose starting wage will be less than the govt assistance. It doesn't matter what the AVERAGE starting wage is. Say, it is $1000 a month and assistance paid is$800. We are concerned about people who get $600 as starting wage. The govt is planning to provide supplement to them since they don't take up the$600 job since they get $800 for sitting at home and doing nothing. The argument is saying that these people who will get$600 will still not work even if govt pays them $200 supplement because they get$800 anyway even if they just sit at home. Then why work? (financially speaking)
What actually weakens the argument is that people who start with $600 (and get$800 due to the supplement) get higher paying jobs subsequently. So financially it does make sense since after 6 months they may get $1000 job. If they will just take the assistance and sit at home, they will get$800 only after 6 months too.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10444
Followers: 886

Kudos [?]: 191 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

15 Apr 2015, 01:41
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
SVP
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2091
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Stanford '19
GMAT 1: 550 Q39 V27
GMAT 2: 560 Q42 V26
GMAT 3: 560 Q43 V24
GMAT 4: 650 Q49 V30
WE: General Management (Transportation)
Followers: 18

Kudos [?]: 248 [0], given: 124

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2015, 16:11
My pre-thinking was that employed people get benefits, at no cost, that otherwise would cost $$. since the answer choice did not provide anything similar, I eliminated the rest and got to the C. If employed people can get better$$ in time, then definitely being employed is better than not being employed.
Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
8 Editorial : Regulations recently imposed by the government 9 15 Nov 2011, 16:01
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government 13 30 Jun 2008, 20:37
In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. 5 19 Nov 2007, 12:08
8 Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government 12 28 Sep 2007, 17:21
24 Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government 17 25 Dec 2006, 03:33
Display posts from previous: Sort by