In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases http://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 17 Jan 2017, 23:34

### 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

# In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Manchester UK
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 385 [0], given: 6

In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2009, 14:32
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

71% (02:23) correct 29% (00:51) wrong based on 24 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantly men; these occupations slipped in pay and status when they became largely occupied by women. Therefore, if women become the majority in currently male-dominated professions like accounting, law, and medicine, the income and prestige of these professions will also drop.

Which of the following, if true, would most likely be part of the evidence used to refute the conclusion above?

(A) Accountants, lawyers, and physicians attained their current relatively high levels of income and prestige at about the same time that the pay and status of teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries slipped.
(B) When large numbers of men join a female-dominated occupation, such as airline flight attendant, the status and pay of the occupation tend to increase.
(C) The demand for teachers and secretaries has increased significantly in recent years, while the demand for bank tellers has remained relatively stable.
(D) If present trends in the awarding of law degrees to women continue, it will be at least two decades before the majority of lawyers are women.
(E) The pay and status of female accountants, lawyers, and physicians today are governed by significantly different economic and sociological forces than were the pay and status of female teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries in the past.

Please help on this...i was not at all able to relate the options with the conclusion which will help to refute it.
If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 2
Location: NJ
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 4

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2009, 16:36
I go for E. What is official answer ?

Let us put this whole thing in simple terms:

Fact: A Impacted B. Statement: A will also impact C.

To prove this is wrong, we need to pick answer which shows C is different from B.
Manager
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 116
Location: Mumbai
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 105 [0], given: 3

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Dec 2009, 18:47
I will go with A
Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Manchester UK
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 385 [0], given: 6

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Dec 2009, 08:50
can some one explain me the option A i am still not able to understand it.
Current Student
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 322
Schools: Yale SOM
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 54 [0], given: 23

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jan 2010, 21:12
This seems like a tough one. See my opinions in blue below.

sagarsabnis wrote:
In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantly men; these occupations slipped in pay and status when they became largely occupied by women. Therefore, if women become the majority in currently male-dominated professions like accounting, law, and medicine, the income and prestige of these professions will also drop.

Which of the following, if true, would most likely be part of the evidence used to refute the conclusion above?

(A) Accountants, lawyers, and physicians attained their current relatively high levels of income and prestige at about the same time that the pay and status of teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries slipped.Accountant etc. incomes remained high as teachers etc. incomes were falling. In my opinion, this is saying that women started entering all of the fields mentioned (teachers etc. and accountant etc.) at the same time. If that is true, according to the assumption of the passage, you would have seen the salaries of accountants etc. fall as well. This point refutes that assumption by saying the high levels of income/prestige of accountants etc. remained the same.
(B) When large numbers of men join a female-dominated occupation, such as airline flight attendant, the status and pay of the occupation tend to increase. This would not refute, it would help the argument.
(C) The demand for teachers and secretaries has increased significantly in recent years, while the demand for bank tellers has remained relatively stable.This doesn't refute. Irrelevant because it is discussing the pay between teachers/secretaries and bank tellers, not the difference of the pay of the group as a whole.
(D) If present trends in the awarding of law degrees to women continue, it will be at least two decades before the majority of lawyers are women. This doesn't refute. Out of context of passage. Too extreme.
(E) The pay and status of female accountants, lawyers, and physicians today are governed by significantly different economic and sociological forces than were the pay and status of female teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries in the past.Too extreme. Passage says nothing about economic and sociological forces.

Please help on this...i was not at all able to relate the options with the conclusion which will help to refute it.
SVP
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 1820
Location: New York
Followers: 34

Kudos [?]: 862 [0], given: 5

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jan 2010, 22:21
mission2011 wrote:
I go for E. What is official answer ?

Let us put this whole thing in simple terms:

Fact: A Impacted B. Statement: A will also impact C.

To prove this is wrong, we need to pick answer which shows C is different from B.

Premise:
A Impacted ( decrease: pay and status )B
Con:A will Impact ( decrease: pay and status ) C

Anser E: says C is different from B. (because C governed by "X" and B doesn't )
C governing by X cannot guarantee that.. Pay and and Status will decrease or increase or constant. So, E is not correct answer.

_________________

Smiling wins more friends than frowning

Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Posts: 314
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 318 [0], given: 9

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Jan 2010, 23:37
sagarsabnis wrote:
can some one explain me the option A i am still not able to understand it.

Option A says that when women largely occupied professions such as teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries, accountants, lawyers, and physicians got their current relatively high levels of income and status

It just says that the two events happened at the same time.
Manager
Status: Its Wow or Never
Joined: 11 Dec 2009
Posts: 205
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Strategy
GMAT 1: 670 Q47 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q48 V40
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 191 [0], given: 7

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2010, 05:55
mikeCoolBoy wrote:
sagarsabnis wrote:
can some one explain me the option A i am still not able to understand it.

Option A says that when women largely occupied professions such as teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries, accountants, lawyers, and physicians got their current relatively high levels of income and status

It just says that the two events happened at the same time.

i go with E.Can someone post the OA plz!!
TIA
_________________

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think you can,you can
If you think you can't,you are right.

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 4220
Followers: 327

Kudos [?]: 3447 [0], given: 101

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2010, 06:15
ill go for E... what reasons have been given by others on top for A are hanging on only assumptions, which do not relate to anything stated in argument.....
however E gives a reason by making the two sets of job varying from each other so what is true for one need not be true for the other
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Manchester UK
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 385 [0], given: 6

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2010, 11:23
OA is A
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 4220
Followers: 327

Kudos [?]: 3447 [0], given: 101

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

02 Jan 2010, 19:32
what is the source? oa doesnt seem to be correct.....
what is the expl?
_________________

Absolute modulus :http://gmatclub.com/forum/absolute-modulus-a-better-understanding-210849.html#p1622372
Combination of similar and dissimilar things : http://gmatclub.com/forum/topic215915.html

Intern
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 33
Followers: 0

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

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2010, 00:45
Pls explain OA , IMO its E ..

http://way2freshers.com/gmat/gmat-verba ... ons-4.html
Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 201
Location: Manchester UK
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 385 [0], given: 6

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2010, 06:40
even i was looking for the explanation hence i posted it...
Intern
Joined: 03 Jan 2010
Posts: 2
Followers: 0

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

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

03 Jan 2010, 20:19
sagarsabnis wrote:
even i was looking for the explanation hence i posted it...

Passage :
In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantly men; these occupations slipped in pay and status when they became largely occupied by women. Therefore, if women become the majority in currently male-dominated professions like accounting, law, and medicine, the income and prestige of these professions will also drop.

Conclusion : the income and prestige of these professions (teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries) will also drop.

Here we are looking which will give strength, if it is true. Hence ans will be Option : A
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 362
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 375 [0], given: 47

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2010, 03:06
sagarsabnis wrote:
In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantly men; these occupations slipped in pay and status when they became largely occupied by women. Therefore, if women become the majority in currently male-dominated professions like accounting, law, and medicine, the income and prestige of these professions will also drop.

Which of the following, if true, would most likely be part of the evidence used to refute the conclusion above?

(A) Accountants, lawyers, and physicians attained their current relatively high levels of income and prestige at about the same time that the pay and status of teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries slipped.
(B) When large numbers of men join a female-dominated occupation, such as airline flight attendant, the status and pay of the occupation tend to increase.
(C) The demand for teachers and secretaries has increased significantly in recent years, while the demand for bank tellers has remained relatively stable.
(D) If present trends in the awarding of law degrees to women continue, it will be at least two decades before the majority of lawyers are women.
(E) The pay and status of female accountants, lawyers, and physicians today are governed by significantly different economic and sociological forces than were the pay and status of female teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries in the past.

Please help on this...i was not at all able to relate the options with the conclusion which will help to refute it.

Explanation:
The above question is a Cause and Effect Reasoning situation.
Cause = If women enter a certain profession
Effect = The profession slip in pay and status

Now if we can prove that there is another cause for this effect, we can refute the conclusion in the question.

Option A does that perfectly
Its says that: Accountants, lawyers, and physicians attained their current relatively high levels of income and prestige at about the same time that the pay and status of teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries slipped.
This means that women entering the profession is not the reason for the slip in status or pay in the professions of teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries. The slipped happened due to some other factors which affected only these profession and didn't effect the other professions like Accountants, lawyers, and physicians. The option doesn't discriminate whether these professions were held by men or women. It could be that the supply of these profession was too high that led to decrease in status and pay of these professions.

Option E cannot be correct for a reason which isn't that logically but it does hold good in GMAT upto some extent. The GMAC would never make an answer which would be biased or show case the discrimination of women (specially downfall) in the current society. The words - " today are governed by significantly different economic and sociological forces" show a sense of discrimination and partiallity with respect to women and hence wouldn't stand a chance of being the correct answer!

I might be wrong in my explanation of Option E but Option A does get the credit as the perfect answer as per the CR rules
_________________

Cheers!
JT...........
If u like my post..... payback in Kudos!!

|For CR refer Powerscore CR Bible|For SC refer Manhattan SC Guide|

~~Better Burn Out... Than Fade Away~~

Senior Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 330
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 102 [0], given: 0

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2010, 06:28
Senior Manager
Joined: 22 Dec 2009
Posts: 362
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 375 [0], given: 47

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2010, 07:13
angel2009 wrote:

sagarsabnis wrote:

A little lost now as sagarsabnis posted the OA is A and now you have posted the OA as E...
Can you please check and confirm!
_________________

Cheers!
JT...........
If u like my post..... payback in Kudos!!

|For CR refer Powerscore CR Bible|For SC refer Manhattan SC Guide|

~~Better Burn Out... Than Fade Away~~

Intern
Joined: 31 Oct 2009
Posts: 40
Location: india
WE 1: Steel Authority of India Limited
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 13 [0], given: 11

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2010, 07:16
jeeteshsingh wrote:
sagarsabnis wrote:
In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantly men; these occupations slipped in pay and status when they became largely occupied by women. Therefore, if women become the majority in currently male-dominated professions like accounting, law, and medicine, the income and prestige of these professions will also drop.

Which of the following, if true, would most likely be part of the evidence used to refute the conclusion above?

(A) Accountants, lawyers, and physicians attained their current relatively high levels of income and prestige at about the same time that the pay and status of teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries slipped.
(B) When large numbers of men join a female-dominated occupation, such as airline flight attendant, the status and pay of the occupation tend to increase.
(C) The demand for teachers and secretaries has increased significantly in recent years, while the demand for bank tellers has remained relatively stable.
(D) If present trends in the awarding of law degrees to women continue, it will be at least two decades before the majority of lawyers are women.
(E) The pay and status of female accountants, lawyers, and physicians today are governed by significantly different economic and sociological forces than were the pay and status of female teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries in the past.

Please help on this...i was not at all able to relate the options with the conclusion which will help to refute it.

Explanation:
The above question is a Cause and Effect Reasoning situation.
Cause = If women enter a certain profession
Effect = The profession slip in pay and status

Now if we can prove that there is another cause for this effect, we can refute the conclusion in the question.

Option A does that perfectly
Its says that: Accountants, lawyers, and physicians attained their current relatively high levels of income and prestige at about the same time that the pay and status of teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries slipped.
This means that women entering the profession is not the reason for the slip in status or pay in the professions of teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries. The slipped happened due to some other factors which affected only these profession and didn't effect the other professions like Accountants, lawyers, and physicians. The option doesn't discriminate whether these professions were held by men or women. It could be that the supply of these profession was too high that led to decrease in status and pay of these professions.

Option E cannot be correct for a reason which isn't that logically but it does hold good in GMAT upto some extent. The GMAC would never make an answer which would be biased or show case the discrimination of women (specially downfall) in the current society. The words - " today are governed by significantly different economic and sociological forces" show a sense of discrimination and partiallity with respect to women and hence wouldn't stand a chance of being the correct answer!

I might be wrong in my explanation of Option E but Option A does get the credit as the perfect answer as per the CR rules

thank you
_________________

kumar sanjay
http://sanjay80.blogspot.com
9437488107

Manager
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 175
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 57 [1] , given: 5

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2010, 08:10
1
KUDOS
(A) Accountants, lawyers, and physicians attained their current relatively high levels of income and prestige at about the same time that the pay and status of teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries slipped.

I have one problem with OA as 'A' it was never said that in the option A women entered in both the accountants,etc., and teachers ,etc., profession at the same number

without that we can't assume that women entered in both types of profession

I still feel that OA is E.

I was disappointed to see OA as A as I can't relate the answer to it. but felt better when I saw posts which states that OA as E
Manager
Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Posts: 175
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 57 [0], given: 5

Re: In the past, teacher [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2010, 08:10
please post the OA and source and if possible official explanation
Re: In the past, teacher   [#permalink] 17 Jan 2010, 08:10

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 24 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
21 Many banks have a drive-through automated teller machine, 15 19 Nov 2012, 09:02
1 Many banks offer drive-through automatic teller machines 6 25 Nov 2011, 13:42
2 In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were 9 13 Oct 2011, 20:06
2 In the town of Snyder, Bank A and Bank B were exhibitors at 11 26 Aug 2011, 02:13
1 In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were 7 05 Sep 2008, 00:21
Display posts from previous: Sort by