NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 24 Apr 2024, 07:35 It is currently 24 Apr 2024, 07:35
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
 1   2   
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
ttanvir
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 33
Own Kudos [?]: 394 [168]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 29 Dec 2017, 16:48
14
Kudos
154
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

68% (01:54) correct 32% (02:24) wrong based on 3468 sessions
Hide Show 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.

Edit: Moderator Editorial Note: this is a different topic from https://gmatclub.com/forum/editorial-in ... l#p1988124 due to the answer choices.
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C

Originally posted by ttanvir on 25 Dec 2006, 04:33.
Last edited by GMATNinjaTwo on 29 Dec 2017, 16:48, edited 1 time in total.
Added Mod. Editorial Note
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14817
Own Kudos [?]: 64894 [49]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   03 Sep 2012, 21:33
43
Kudos
5
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
venmic 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 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.


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 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"
User avatar
ttanvir
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 33
Own Kudos [?]: 394 [11]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   25 Dec 2006, 05:08
7
Kudos
4
Bookmarks
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.
General Discussion
User avatar
L
carcass
Board of Directors
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 4380
Own Kudos [?]: 32868 [1]
Given Kudos: 4453
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   03 Sep 2012, 09:12
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

:)
User avatar
getgyan
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Affiliations: SAE
Posts: 380
Own Kudos [?]: 961 [2]
Given Kudos: 269
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
Schools: Schulich '15 (A) Neeley '15 (M$)
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE:Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   12 Sep 2012, 00:09
2
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

Option C is our answer
avatar
sr2013
Intern
Intern
Joined: 08 Nov 2012
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 9
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   23 Nov 2013, 21:09
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 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.
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14817
Own Kudos [?]: 64894 [5]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   24 Nov 2013, 20:43
5
Kudos
Expert Reply
sr2013 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 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.
User avatar
shyam593
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Jul 2013
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 19
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   03 Jan 2015, 17:10
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 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.
User avatar
L
egmat
e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 4346
Own Kudos [?]: 30781 [3]
Given Kudos: 635
GMAT Date: 08-19-2020
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   05 Jan 2015, 11:45
3
Kudos
Expert Reply
Dear Shyam,

Responding to your request to answer your post on this thread. :-)

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
User avatar
P
mvictor
Board of Directors
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2163
Own Kudos [?]: 1180 [1]
Given Kudos: 236
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Stanford '20 (WD)
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE:General Management (Transportation)
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   27 Nov 2015, 17:11
My pre-thinking was that employed people get benefits, at no cost, that otherwise would cost money.

Since the answer choice did not provide anything similar, I eliminated the rest and got to the C. If employed people can get better money in time, then definitely being employed is better than not being employed.
User avatar
Divyadisha
Current Student
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 680
Own Kudos [?]: 1763 [2]
Given Kudos: 69
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.98
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   28 Jul 2016, 10:19
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
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 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.


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.
User avatar
G
LakerFan24
Manager
Manager
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 172
Own Kudos [?]: 601 [0]
Given Kudos: 1
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE:Investment Banking (Venture Capital)
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   10 May 2017, 05:55
my issue with this Q is the OA assumes a lot: (1) that the unemployed becomes employed and then (2) assumes the newly employed get higher paid jobs. i'm looking for something that weakens the idea that unemployed have no financial incentive to accept jobs for govt supplement, i want something that deals w/ this, not deals w/ (well what if these unemployed ppl become employed and what if this also happens?)
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6917
Own Kudos [?]: 63653 [1]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   13 May 2017, 12:24
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
Top Contributor
Quote:
my issue with this Q is the OA assumes a lot: (1) that the unemployed becomes employed and then (2) assumes the newly employed get higher paid jobs. i'm looking for something that weakens the idea that unemployed have no financial incentive to accept jobs for govt supplement, i want something that deals w/ this, not deals w/ (well what if these unemployed ppl become employed and what if this also happens?)

The question stem says, "Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?" That means that when analyzing choice (C) we can assume that the statement is 100% accurate and that "people who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed."

The conclusion is that, "unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement" proposed by the government. Say, for example, that an unemployed Ledland adult, Jim, is unemployed and given $100 per week in government assistance. If he takes a job that pays $75 per week and the government pays him $25 (as proposed), he will still make $100 per week. Thus, as argued in the passage, he will have no financial incentive to accept that job (his income will be the same). But if statement (C) is true and Jim takes the job, he will then be MORE likely to get a HIGHER-paying job than if he were unemployed. If he doesn't take the job, his income will definitely stay at $100 per week (in government assistance). If he takes the job, and if statement (C) is true, his income might increase because he is more likely to get a higher-paying job.

In this case, Jim would have a financial incentive to accept the job that entitles him to the supplement, so choice (C) definitely weakens the argument. True, he might not get a higher-paying job, but, taking choice (C) to be 100% accurate, "people who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed." This is enough to seriously weaken the argument of the editorial.
User avatar
S
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 238
Own Kudos [?]: 984 [0]
Given Kudos: 1021
GMAT 1: 760 Q48 V47
GMAT 2: 770 Q49 V48
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V47
GMAT 4: 790 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q168 V167

GRE 2: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   28 Dec 2017, 09:39
Expert Reply
Please note that this passage appears with slightly different answer choices in EP2. A new thread has been created to discuss that variation of the question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/editorial-in ... l#p1988124
User avatar
L
KarishmaB
Tutor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 14817
Own Kudos [?]: 64894 [1]
Given Kudos: 426
Location: Pune, India
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   06 Jan 2018, 06:39
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
venmic 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 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.


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 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"


Responding to a pm:
Quote:
Hi Karishma,

Could you please elaborate on why option D over here is wrong with an example?


We are looking for a financial incentive that will make people work.

D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the
yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.

What the govt defines as poverty level is immaterial. The point is that the unemployed people receive the same $400 which they will get if they take up a job which pays less than $400. They have no financial incentive to work. The fact that $400 is less than poverty line doesn't come into play since they will not get more than $400 in either case.
avatar
B
valentinbrr
Intern
Intern
Joined: 02 Dec 2016
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: [0]
Given Kudos: 61
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   17 Sep 2018, 14:07
My initial choice was (E) but during review I realized that this does not even refer to the point of a financial benefit so even if the "sometimes" would be removed this would be out.
avatar
B
St123Kt
Intern
Intern
Joined: 15 Jul 2020
Posts: 22
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [0]
Given Kudos: 6
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   21 Oct 2020, 09:03
C wins. We need an alternative advantage of the plan. C talks about the better prospect of getting employed.
E is tempting. But the argument especially the conclusion is talking about financial incentive. E refers to the enjoyment/mental. So E is out. Also pay attention to the quantifier...sometimes..
User avatar
G
CEdward
VP
VP
Joined: 11 Aug 2020
Posts: 1262
Own Kudos [?]: 201 [0]
Given Kudos: 332
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   27 Mar 2021, 18:49
Hi all, I see some comments about the use of 'sometimes' in choice E. Can someone elaborate upon that a little bit more and provide a practical recommendation regarding why it makes a choice wrong?

GMATNinja
GMATNinjatwo
User avatar
L
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6917
Own Kudos [?]: 63653 [0]
Given Kudos: 1773
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   07 Apr 2021, 20:19
Expert Reply
CEdward wrote:
Hi all, I see some comments about the use of 'sometimes' in choice E. Can someone elaborate upon that a little bit more and provide a practical recommendation regarding why it makes a choice wrong?

GMATNinja
GMATNinjatwo

The author concludes that "unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement."

We have to weaken this argument.

Take a look at (E):
Quote:
(E) People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

(E) doesn't give us any information about financial incentives. Instead, it tells us about a different incentive to work (enjoyment!). So, (E) doesn't weaken the argument at all -- the author's conclusion about financial incentives is not impacted by another incentive to work.

Compare that to (C):
Quote:
(C) People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.

(C) tells us that there IS a financial incentive to work, even if you make just as much money as you would on unemployment benefits. Sure, you're not going to make more money in your first job, but you'll be more likely to get a higher-paying job when you apply for your next job.

(C) directly weakens the author's conclusion about financial incentives, so (C) is the correct answer.

Sure, it's true that words like "sometimes" can greatly impact the meaning of an answer choice, but that's not the main reason to eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!
User avatar
B
gmatimothy
Manager
Manager
Joined: 18 Apr 2022
Posts: 114
Own Kudos [?]: 9 [0]
Given Kudos: 704
Location: United States
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink] New post   06 Jun 2022, 19:24
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 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?

Goal is to find an answer that attacks the idea that there is no financial incentive for unemployed people to take on jobs. In other words, which answer choice shows that there IS a financial incentive for those people to be employed?

(A) The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.

This actually strengthens the argument - if you are unemployed, you get tax benefits that employees don't get.

(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.

Bingo! This answer choice reveals an incentive for unemployed people to be employed because they can use that job as a stepping stone to get higher pay later in their career.

(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.

Edit: Moderator Editorial Note: this is a different topic from https://gmatclub.com/forum/editorial-in ... l#p1988124 due to the answer choices.
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance [#permalink]
06 Jun 2022, 19:24
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6917 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions