Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 20 Nov 2014, 14:58

Close

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 42
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government [#permalink] New post 25 Dec 2006, 03:33
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

86% (02:03) correct 14% (03:00) wrong based on 11 sessions
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.

Answer:
1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 42
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 8 [1] , given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 25 Dec 2006, 04:08
1
This post received
KUDOS
Hi All:
There is no OA for this question. I will post my answer for this question. Thanks

Q30:
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.

Answer:
Question Type: Weakening question
Conclusion: The unemployed people do not have any financial incentive to accept jobs.
Premise1: The unemployed people receive government assistance.
Premise1: The employed people with low income plus government supplement will not exceed the government assistance. Let us do a math:

The government assistance = $50
The income = $30
Thus, the supplement= 50-20=$30


In order to weakening this argument, let us attack the conclusion. If we can prove that the unemployed people DO have financial incentive to accept jobs it will break the conclusion. Let us take a look at the choices:


A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed
individuals and their families. Taxes will not create any incentive for employment. Out of scope

B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer
must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently
has. Low wage creates no incentive for employnment-Strengths the conclusion

C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs
than job seekers who are unemployed. If people take low income job, they will get a high income job later. Thus, there is a financial incentive of taking low income jobs. weakens the conclusion. Answer.

D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less
than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level. This satement will strengths the conclusion because the supplement is higher than the low income.

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy
the work.The word ‘sometimes’ does not give a definite conclusion.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 24 Sep 2006
Posts: 281
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 25 Dec 2006, 10:50
C it is.

C creates a financial incentive for unemployed to be employed and earn more in new job
_________________

AimHigher

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 592
Location: Kuwait
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 159 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 25 Dec 2006, 11:02
I got stuck between A and C

how come paying less taxes is not a financial incentive ?
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 08 Nov 2006
Posts: 1560
Location: Ann Arbor
Schools: Ross '10
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 25 Dec 2006, 11:10
Mishari wrote:
I got stuck between A and C

how come paying less taxes is not a financial incentive ?


Yes, not payin taxes is indeed beneficial. A indicates that people are better off without taking up lower paying jobs because they will have to pay taxes on their salaries. This is in agreement with the editorial, thus strengthening it.

We need to weaken the editorial. C does that.
_________________

My Profile/GMAT/MBA Story
http://www.gmatclub.com/forum/111-t59345

Take a Survey about GMAT Prep - Win Prizes!

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
Posts: 592
Location: Kuwait
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 159 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 25 Dec 2006, 11:17
Duh ! what's wrong with me ?

thanks ncprasad
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 24 Nov 2006
Posts: 351
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 01 Jan 2007, 13:37
Good analysis, ttanvir. Just one thing: if gov assistance is 50 and income is 30, shouldn´t the supplement be 20?


ttanvir wrote:
Hi All:
There is no OA for this question. I will post my answer for this question. Thanks

Q30:
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.

Answer:
Question Type: Weakening question
Conclusion: The unemployed people do not have any financial incentive to accept jobs.
Premise1: The unemployed people receive government assistance.
Premise1: The employed people with low income plus government supplement will not exceed the government assistance. Let us do a math:

The government assistance = $50
The income = $30
Thus, the supplement= 50-20=$30


In order to weakening this argument, let us attack the conclusion. If we can prove that the unemployed people DO have financial incentive to accept jobs it will break the conclusion. Let us take a look at the choices:


A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed
individuals and their families. Taxes will not create any incentive for employment. Out of scope

B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer
must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently
has. Low wage creates no incentive for employnment-Strengths the conclusion

C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs
than job seekers who are unemployed. If people take low income job, they will get a high income job later. Thus, there is a financial incentive of taking low income jobs. weakens the conclusion. Answer.

D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less
than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level. This satement will strengths the conclusion because the supplement is higher than the low income.

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy
the work.The word ‘sometimes’ does not give a definite conclusion.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1133
Location: India
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 1

 [#permalink] New post 03 Jan 2007, 20:48
C after reading thorugh the killer explaination by ttanvir.
_________________

Trying hard to conquer Quant.

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 03 Dec 2006
Posts: 77
Location: London
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 04 Jan 2007, 03:08
C...

The financial incentive is that they will be able to get a better paying job later. It's the only choice that weakens the argument that "unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would
entitle them to the supplement".
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 297
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 22 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-Ledland, unemployed [#permalink] New post 22 May 2008, 12:47
Yeah C can be an incentive and can go against the editorial's conclusion!
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 99
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-Ledland, unemployed [#permalink] New post 22 May 2008, 16:35
I'm going with C
_________________

MBA Blog: University of Minnesota Carlson School of Management- http://unconventionalapplicant.blogspot.com/

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 19 May 2008
Posts: 165
Location: Mumbai
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 3 [0], given: 0

Re: CR-Ledland, unemployed [#permalink] New post 22 May 2008, 20:08
C it is - that weakens the argument
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 798
Followers: 20

Kudos [?]: 90 [0], given: 25

Re: CR-Ledland, unemployed [#permalink] New post 22 May 2008, 20:14
C as it weakens the argument by stating obvious financial incentives.
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2589
Followers: 304

Kudos [?]: 71 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government [#permalink] New post 06 Oct 2014, 12:33
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.
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government   [#permalink] 06 Oct 2014, 12:33
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
9 Experts publish their posts in the topic Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government venmic 7 03 Sep 2012, 06:46
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government rpmodi 13 30 Jun 2008, 20:37
In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. gregspirited 5 19 Nov 2007, 12:08
3 Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government bkk145 11 28 Sep 2007, 17:21
In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. KC 5 31 Oct 2006, 08:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.