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

It is currently 24 Dec 2014, 18:15

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

In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 395
Location: India
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 211 [0], given: 10

Re: GWD #16 V11 [#permalink] New post 31 Jan 2013, 23:06
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
I disagree.

SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Let us analyze choice A. It says that the current student-teacher ratio is higher now at government funded schools than it was during the last recession. Let us assume the current period to be a period of stronger economy. A higher student-teacher ratio during the current period means that during the last recession period there were less students who attended the government funded schools. It cannot be more teachers because till now during recession, jobs were cut down.


We don't know what was the scenario during recession last time. Perhaps the demography was such that there were fewer kids leading to higher student-teacher ratios. Perhaps there were more teachers in the system and with declining demand, the number of teachers in the system has decreased which has increased the student-teacher ratio. There are n number of possibilities. Nothing is given that links last recession with the current scenario. What you are given is the current scenario and what you can expect in the next recession. So choice (A) is out of scope.

SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Choice B in my opinion is not as solid because it doesn't automatically imply that the students who were studying at private schools during stronger economy would join the government funded schools during recession because as mentioned above there are two factors that weigh in students decision, being quality of education and cost of education. So if the private schools were markedly higher in the quality of education that they offer we would see little number of students moving to government funded schools during recession.

So to me choice A appears to strengthen the argument better.


Again, quality of education is out of scope here. There are a dozen other factors parents weigh while selecting a school but none of the others are relevant to our argument. The argument only deals with cost and student-teacher ratio. Option B very clearly states that during strong times, many kids are attending private schools which charge substantial fees. Also, since it is given that jobs are harder to come by in recession, it is possible that some people might be forced to use free-of-cost govt schools.



Let us first agree that during recession the number of teachers is lower than during a period of strong economy. The argument is based on that fact. Let us also use the common sense logic that the number of kids going to school is not going to vary significantly from one year to another within a short period. So considering all the n number of possibilities we can reasonably reach the above conclusion. So there is the cost factor and n number of other factors. If during recession the n number of factors weighed more or equally in favor of the private schools as in a period of strong economy, then the cost factor is being overlooked and therefore there are enough well to do parents who can send their kids to private schools during recession. Your argument that since parents would be out of job and so don't send their kids to private schools is not strong. This is because during previous recession also as we can infer, the parents did not change their kids from private schools to government funded schools because of cost. So if the number of kids going to private schools is 25% during strong economy it was also about the same during the recession.

While choice B considers only the cost factor, choice A implies that the other factors are important and along with the cost factor will strengthen the argument even strongly. In fact in the case of choice B, cost factor may be pitted against the other factors.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com

Classroom Courses in Chennai
Free Online Material

Veritas Prep GMAT Discount CodesKnewton GMAT Discount CodesKaplan GMAT Prep Discount Codes
Expert Post
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1811
Followers: 1342

Kudos [?]: 3896 [0], given: 194

Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink] New post 01 Feb 2013, 00:35
Expert's post
eybrj2 wrote:
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.

B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.

C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia’s government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.

D. Teachers in Vargonia’s government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.

E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded.


Hi,

As I see, already there are two experts active on this thread, I am not sure if I am going to add much value to the discussion. But let me try.

When I read this passage, one thing that struck me was the underlined part: "However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools". So, the conclusion is not talking about the next recession or one particular recession; it is about all recessions to come. Therefore, any option statement which only talks about just one or two recessions is not going to support the general trend predicted in the conclusion.

The correct option has to give pointers to all the future recessions or provide a trend that has been generally followed in the past, which we can assume to hold in the future also.

Eliminate options A, C and E right away

Therefore, when I went to the options with this understanding in mind, I could easily eliminate options A, C and E since these three options just compare two economic recession - I am looking for a trend.

Option D is so out of context.

Option B is what I am looking for. It talks about "recent periods", not one period but a number of periods. So, it is talking about a trend. Now, what is the trend? The trend is that in strong economic conditions, a large number of children study in private schools, which charge "substantial fees". So, we can easily assume that the number of students at public schools will not decrease; it should rather increase. Therefore, the job availability of teaching jobs will likely not reduce.

Hope this helps :)

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeT9_Wr0DlI&feature=youtu.be

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 395
Location: India
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 211 [0], given: 10

Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink] New post 01 Feb 2013, 01:14
egmat wrote:
eybrj2 wrote:
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.

B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.

C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia’s government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.

D. Teachers in Vargonia’s government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.

E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded.


Hi,

As I see, already there are two experts active on this thread, I am not sure if I am going to add much value to the discussion. But let me try.

When I read this passage, one thing that struck me was the underlined part: "However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools". So, the conclusion is not talking about the next recession or one particular recession; it is about all recessions to come. Therefore, any option statement which only talks about just one or two recessions is not going to support the general trend predicted in the conclusion.

The correct option has to give pointers to all the future recessions or provide a trend that has been generally followed in the past, which we can assume to hold in the future also.

Eliminate options A, C and E right away

Therefore, when I went to the options with this understanding in mind, I could easily eliminate options A, C and E since these three options just compare two economic recession - I am looking for a trend.

Option D is so out of context.

Option B is what I am looking for. It talks about "recent periods", not one period but a number of periods. So, it is talking about a trend. Now, what is the trend? The trend is that in strong economic conditions, a large number of children study in private schools, which charge "substantial fees". So, we can easily assume that the number of students at public schools will not decrease; it should rather increase. Therefore, the job availability of teaching jobs will likely not reduce.

Hope this helps :)

Thanks,
Chiranjeev



Something that strengthens the argument should add useful additional knowledge other than what is common sense knowledge. In my opinion choice B offers no useful additional information because if there are private schools some parents would indeed send their children to the private schools and cost is indeed generally a factor. This is common sense knowledge just as the knowledge that public schools charge lower fees.

Anyway the fact that 25% of students in recent periods have always attended private schools during strong economic period may mean two things:

1) They never left the private school during recession
2) All who left during recession to the public schools returned to the private schools after recession.

In the second case, cost factor would have weighed in. In the first case, factors other than cost would have weighed in. How can you decide which one is stronger?
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com

Classroom Courses in Chennai
Free Online Material

Expert Post
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 1811
Followers: 1342

Kudos [?]: 3896 [0], given: 194

Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink] New post 01 Feb 2013, 01:58
Expert's post
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Something that strengthens the argument should add useful additional knowledge other than what is common sense knowledge. In my opinion choice B offers no useful additional information because if there are private schools some parents would indeed send their children to the private schools and cost is indeed generally a factor. This is common sense knowledge just as the knowledge that public schools charge lower fees.


I think here we are moving in an area where a number of students have doubts. The area is "what is common sense knowledge". Well, I am not going into what is considered common sense in GMAT, generally; however, within the given context option B is certainly not a common sense knowledge.

Just because there are some private schools, would some parents always send their children to them, even if:
- the public education is completely free
-private schools charge substantial fees
-recession is going on

And again option B doesn't only say 'some' children go to private schools, it says "25%" of the children, which means 1 in every 4 children, which is substantial given that public education is free and private schools charge "substantial fees".

Can we consider above information as common sense? I think not.

SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Anyway the fact that 25% of students in recent periods have always attended private schools during strong economic period may mean two things:

1) They never left the private school during recession
2) All who left during recession to the public schools returned to the private schools after recession.

In the second case, cost factor would have weighed in. In the first case, factors other than cost would have weighed in. How can you decide which one is stronger?


I would say a case between these two extremes is more probable i.e. where some students move from private schools to govt. funded schools. You are right that it's hard to support one case over the other. The most probable case would be somewhere in between. This case would strengthen our conclusion - because for more students, more teachers would need to be hired.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeT9_Wr0DlI&feature=youtu.be

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 395
Location: India
Followers: 16

Kudos [?]: 211 [0], given: 10

Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink] New post 01 Feb 2013, 05:00
egmat wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Something that strengthens the argument should add useful additional knowledge other than what is common sense knowledge. In my opinion choice B offers no useful additional information because if there are private schools some parents would indeed send their children to the private schools and cost is indeed generally a factor. This is common sense knowledge just as the knowledge that public schools charge lower fees.


I think here we are moving in an area where a number of students have doubts. The area is "what is common sense knowledge". Well, I am not going into what is considered common sense in GMAT, generally; however, within the given context option B is certainly not a common sense knowledge.

Just because there are some private schools, would some parents always send their children to them, even if:
- the public education is completely free
-private schools charge substantial fees
-recession is going on

And again option B doesn't only say 'some' children go to private schools, it says "25%" of the children, which means 1 in every 4 children, which is substantial given that public education is free and private schools charge "substantial fees".

Can we consider above information as common sense? I think not.

SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Anyway the fact that 25% of students in recent periods have always attended private schools during strong economic period may mean two things:

1) They never left the private school during recession
2) All who left during recession to the public schools returned to the private schools after recession.

In the second case, cost factor would have weighed in. In the first case, factors other than cost would have weighed in. How can you decide which one is stronger?


I would say a case between these two extremes is more probable i.e. where some students move from private schools to govt. funded schools. You are right that it's hard to support one case over the other. The most probable case would be somewhere in between. This case would strengthen our conclusion - because for more students, more teachers would need to be hired.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev



Dear Chiranjeev,

The reality is that parents do send their kids to private schools. We do know that private schools charge substantial fees. Also we are talking about a period when the economy is strong.

Regarding choice B, I mentioned the two scenarios because they fit the information given in that choice that each year about the same percentage of students go to the private schools during a strong economy. You cannot choose something in between because that would not be reflecting the truth given in choice B.

As a matter of fact the first case I mentioned in my previous post would actually weaken the argument.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna Test Prep
http://www.sravna.com

Classroom Courses in Chennai
Free Online Material

CEO
CEO
User avatar
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 2890
Followers: 337

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

Premium Member
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink] New post 20 Mar 2014, 04:23
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.
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Tomorrow will be a new day...
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 967
Location: India
GMAT Date: 01-06-2015
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 70

Kudos [?]: 500 [0], given: 215

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink] New post 06 Apr 2014, 10:28
OA is debatable and vulnerable to many assumptions.

We are just assuming that in recession because of financial burden people will move their kids to govt schools... and if I add further one more assumption that most of the poor parents wont be able to afford to send their kids to even govt schools during recession then in that case this student-teacher ratio may come down... overall we are just trying to fit option B in the shoe of OA..
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos :)
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Expert Post
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 5042
Location: Pune, India
Followers: 1213

Kudos [?]: 5847 [0], given: 168

Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink] New post 07 Apr 2014, 20:43
Expert's post
PiyushK wrote:
OA is debatable and vulnerable to many assumptions.

We are just assuming that in recession because of financial burden people will move their kids to govt schools... and if I add further one more assumption that most of the poor parents wont be able to afford to send their kids to even govt schools during recession then in that case this student-teacher ratio may come down... overall we are just trying to fit option B in the shoe of OA..



Not at all! OA is absolutely not debatable because it is an official question and the OA is official. This means it is useless to scorn at the OA. Instead, try to understand the logic they are giving since you will need to use it in GMAT questions.

We are not "assuming" that in recession people will move their kids to govt schools.

Legal requirement introduced just now: All kids have to receive free education in govt schools (irrespective of economy) and student teacher ratio has to be maintained.
It's a legal requirement brought in just now. Chances are that more students (who were not in school before) will enter govt schools since its required now. Even if all kids were already in school, the availability of teaching jobs will probably stay the same and not reduce.

Hence we conclude that: any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools.

Now how do we strengthen it further?

We are saying that currently economy is strong and 25% kids are in private schools which charge high fees. So it is highly unlikely that in recession, more people will shift their wards to private schools which charge high fees. It is far more likely that in recession, even some of these 25% kids might get shifted to free govt schools if parents feel that they are unable to afford the private school. Hence it is unlikely that many students from govt schools will shift to private schools (which are pricey) in time of recession and hence it is unlikely that teaching jobs will reduce.

This further strengthens our conclusion. Note that we don't have to "prove it beyond doubt". We just have to increase the probability.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Save $100 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

Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Status: Tomorrow will be a new day...
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 967
Location: India
GMAT Date: 01-06-2015
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 70

Kudos [?]: 500 [0], given: 215

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink] New post 07 Apr 2014, 23:18
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
PiyushK wrote:
OA is debatable and vulnerable to many assumptions.

We are just assuming that in recession because of financial burden people will move their kids to govt schools... and if I add further one more assumption that most of the poor parents wont be able to afford to send their kids to even govt schools during recession then in that case this student-teacher ratio may come down... overall we are just trying to fit option B in the shoe of OA..



Not at all! OA is absolutely not debatable because it is an official question and the OA is official. This means it is useless to scorn at the OA. Instead, try to understand the logic they are giving since you will need to use it in GMAT questions.

We are not "assuming" that in recession people will move their kids to govt schools.

Legal requirement introduced just now: All kids have to receive free education in govt schools (irrespective of economy) and student teacher ratio has to be maintained.
It's a legal requirement brought in just now. Chances are that more students (who were not in school before) will enter govt schools since its required now. Even if all kids were already in school, the availability of teaching jobs will probably stay the same and not reduce.

Hence we conclude that: any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools.

Now how do we strengthen it further?

We are saying that currently economy is strong and 25% kids are in private schools which charge high fees. So it is highly unlikely that in recession, more people will shift their wards to private schools which charge high fees. It is far more likely that in recession, even some of these 25% kids might get shifted to free govt schools if parents feel that they are unable to afford the private school. Hence it is unlikely that many students from govt schools will shift to private schools (which are pricey) in time of recession and hence it is unlikely that teaching jobs will reduce.

This further strengthens our conclusion. Note that we don't have to "prove it beyond doubt". We just have to increase the probability.


Thanks Karishma. Now I got it. In my previous analysis I didn't consider that "Legal requirement part."
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos :)
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 291
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 46

GMAT ToolKit User
Re: GWD #16 V11 [#permalink] New post 17 Jun 2014, 02:40
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
eybrj2 wrote:
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.

B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.

C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia’s government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.

D. Teachers in Vargonia’s government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.

E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded.


Ok, there are a lot of words there so try to paraphrase and make sense of it in the first read itself. This is what the argument is saying:
Conclusion: A recession in the future will not hurt teaching jobs at government-funded schools.Why?
Premises:
1. Education has to be made available to all children in govt schools.
2. Student teacher ratio cannot be increased.

What will strengthen this conclusion?
Something which gives you further evidence that recession will not hurt teaching jobs at govt schools. If student-teacher ratio has to be maintained, what can lead to fewer jobs for teachers? Fewer students. So if we can establish that during recession, the number of students in govt schools will not reduce, we can establish that teaching jobs in govt schools are secure no matter the state of the economy.

(B) tells you that 25% students study in private schools which charge high fees. What do you think could happen in recession? Either nothing happens or people move their kids to govt schools. In either case, govt school teachers have a secure job. (There is actually a possibility of more demand of govt school teachers during recession.) Your argument is strengthened.

(C) tells you that more teachers are currently employed in govt schools than previously. How does it imply that their jobs are secure? If anything, it lends a shade of weakness to the argument, not strength - if there are too many teachers right now, some of them may need to leave during recession. Mind you, I am not saying that it is weakening the argument since there can be very valid reasons for extra teachers now (because education has to be made available to every child and probably the student teacher ratio required the govt schools to hire more teachers etc). Whatever the reasons, it certainly doesn't say that the job of the govt school teachers in future are more secure.


Presuming that education in pvt institute is preferred as compared to Govt institutes :roll:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Jan 2013
Posts: 5
Followers: 0

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

Premium Member CAT Tests
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink] New post 17 Jun 2014, 11:48
eybrj2 wrote:
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.

B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.

C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia’s government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.

D. Teachers in Vargonia’s government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.

E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded.


Conclusion: If the economy in Vargonia goes to hell, then you can either be a panhandler or start learning how to become a teacher since those will be the only jobs available.

Details: The mayor of Vargonia took his head out his butt and decided it would be a good idea to offer free education instead of taxing his citizens into indentured servitude. The mayor also decided that since a free education is worthless if it's of terrible quality, he ensured that the new legal requirement enforces student teacher ratio to be not terrible.

A) Who cares? We're talking about the future, and the rates are already going to be set as is due to the requirement.

B) So let me get this straight. If there were 100 kids in Vargonia's school system, Then 25 of these richy richs went to the private system and the rest of the paupers went to the government funded system. But if Vargonia's economy goes to hell, that means everyone essentially becomes paupers. So now we have a city full of paupers and panhandlers.
But hey! wait a second! don't go for the bottle yet! If you're a teacher then that means you have a get out of jail free card! Why? Because the parents of these 25 kids that went to the private system now have the option/privlege to send their rugrats to the prestigious government funded system they chose not to in the first place for the grand total price of zero dollars (thank you new legal requirement!). That means prior, if the ratio of teachers to rugrats at the gov system was set in stone, then adding more kids to the school system will result in having to add more teachers. So not only would teacher availability remain the same, but also new jobs would be created.

C) In other news, my dog had a bowel movement, just as relevant as this answer choice.
D) Please refer to (C)
All this means is that there will be more competition for teaching jobs when the economy goes to hell because the pay is good enough to stop you from moon lighting.
E) Please Refer to (C)
Also more than anything this could potentially be a weakens statement. If during the last recession they closed schools then it would reduce the student population, and since the student/teacher ratio remains constant, then it wouldn't be far fetched to say that they would have to get rid of the excess teachers to keep the same rate.
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic   [#permalink] 17 Jun 2014, 11:48
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic mymba99 6 24 May 2008, 07:00
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic ricokevin 11 16 Apr 2007, 00:18
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic okdongdong 6 10 Aug 2005, 02:56
In general , jobs are harder to get in times of economic src 3 06 Aug 2005, 19:46
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic nocilis 22 10 Mar 2005, 22:18
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 31 posts ] 



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®.