Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government : 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, 08:29

### 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

Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 41
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 38 [2] , given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2006, 03:33
2
KUDOS
17
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

55% (hard)

Question Stats:

66% (02:18) correct 34% (01:43) wrong based on 567 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
If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 41
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 38 [2] , given: 0

### Show Tags

25 Dec 2006, 04:08
2
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Hi All:
There is no OA for this question. I will post my answer for this question. Thanks

Q30:
Editorial:
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 workerâ€™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.

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 â€˜sometimesâ€™ does not give a definite conclusion. Senior Manager Joined: 24 Sep 2006 Posts: 281 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 29 [0], given: 0 Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government [#permalink] ### Show Tags 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 Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 591 Location: Kuwait Followers: 14 Kudos [?]: 272 [0], given: 0 Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government [#permalink] ### Show Tags 25 Dec 2006, 11:02 I got stuck between A and C how come paying less taxes is not a financial incentive ? SVP Joined: 08 Nov 2006 Posts: 1559 Location: Ann Arbor Schools: Ross '10 Followers: 14 Kudos [?]: 189 [0], given: 1 Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government [#permalink] ### Show Tags 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 GMAT Club Premium Membership - big benefits and savings Director Joined: 30 Nov 2006 Posts: 591 Location: Kuwait Followers: 14 Kudos [?]: 272 [0], given: 0 Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government [#permalink] ### Show Tags 25 Dec 2006, 11:17 Duh ! what's wrong with me ? thanks ncprasad Senior Manager Joined: 24 Nov 2006 Posts: 350 Followers: 1 Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 0 Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government [#permalink] ### Show Tags 01 Jan 2007, 13:37 Good analysis, ttanvir. Just one thing: if gov assistance is 50 and income is 30, shouldnÂ´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 workerâ€™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 â€˜sometimesâ€™ does not give a definite conclusion.
VP
Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 1131
Location: India
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 41 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2007, 20:48
C after reading thorugh the killer explaination by ttanvir.
_________________

Trying hard to conquer Quant.

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

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

### Show Tags

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
Joined: 07 Jan 2008
Posts: 297
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 42 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

22 May 2008, 12:47
Yeah C can be an incentive and can go against the editorial's conclusion!
Manager
Joined: 27 Mar 2008
Posts: 99
Followers: 1

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

### Show Tags

22 May 2008, 16:35
I'm going with C
_________________

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

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

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

### Show Tags

22 May 2008, 20:08
C it is - that weakens the argument
Director
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 798
Followers: 21

Kudos [?]: 119 [0], given: 25

### Show Tags

22 May 2008, 20:14
C as it weakens the argument by stating obvious financial incentives.
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10533
Followers: 918

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

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.
Intern
Joined: 04 Jul 2013
Posts: 17
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 19

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2015, 16:10
Editorial:
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 workerâ€™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 currently 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.

the question is from gmat prep exam pack.
option c has "currently" missing from it.
is option C still correct. As it talks about currently employed adults whereas we are concerned with unemployed adults.
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1996
Followers: 2081

Kudos [?]: 7149 [2] , given: 267

### Show Tags

05 Jan 2015, 10:45
2
KUDOS
Expert's post
Dear Shyam,

Adding "currently" would defeat the purpose of this choice. It's actually meant to indicate that currently unemployed people may want to take up lower-paying jobs because doing so would increase their chances of switching to a better-paying job.

Let me elaborate a bit on this. Let's say Sheila is unemployed and gets $50 a week from the government. If she takes up job#1, which would pay her$40 per week (+$10/week from the government), she would then belong to the category of people who are employed and have a good chance of switching to a higher-paying job. So she could, for example, apply for job#2, which would pay her$60 per week. She'd be eligible for this hike since she'd already be employed at job#1. If she were unemployed and applying for job#2, she may not be offered \$60 per week. So, as an unemployed person, she does actually have a financial incentive to apply for job#1 because it would give her the opportunity to apply for a higher-paying job, an opportunity she wouldn't have if she were unemployed.

I hope this helps!

Regards,
Meghna
_________________

| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10533
Followers: 918

Kudos [?]: 203 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

04 Mar 2016, 22:12
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.
Director
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 924
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.98
Followers: 93

Kudos [?]: 234 [1] , given: 69

### Show Tags

28 Jul 2016, 09:19
1
KUDOS
ttanvir wrote:
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 workerâ€™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.

Conclusion:- There is no financial incentive for unemployed to accept the job.

Reason- Money that is given to unemployed > money offered at the low paying job +govt. assistance.

Thing to find- What weakens the argument? Or what is that which shows the presence of financial incentive in accepting the job.

Possible weakeners:-
1) There is bonus given at the job which is not included in above argument. And the bonus is hefty.
2) The assistance given to unemployed can not be used actually. Govt. deposits the money in an account that can not be drawn within certain period.
3) There is a reason to get the job as it is beneficial in log term.

A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families. This is a good reason to be unemployed.

B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has. Neighboring county?

C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed. Bingo! Long term benefit is there in accepting the job.

D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level. It doesn't answer if the person will accept the job.

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work. We want to know their financial decision.

_________________

I welcome critical analysis of my post!! That will help me reach 700+

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
21 Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government 9 03 Sep 2012, 06:46
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
Display posts from previous: Sort by