Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Argument = Mayor caused more new jobs than old, and new jobs had higher average pay than previous job, therefore the pay average has increased during the Mayor's tenure.
This one is tricky.
A) This is a bit confusing since it talks about 3 years but we don't really know how long the Mayor has been in office. Furthermore it seems to imply that pay associated with the Mayor is lower. The confusion and implication don't look good.
B) This suggests that the purported increase in pay might be attributed to a natural increase of pay rather than the Mayor's efforts. Some of his fans might say that he's the reason the 10 year low ended... but that's not substantiated. Altogether it doesn't do much because it doesn't mention growth (for all we know it's STILL at a 10 year low and the advert is just propaganda). I am tempted by this one but I just can't see it supporting the argument that well.
C) This is a bit of a "so what" answer. Nothing to do with growth of pay.
D) I like D the best but I am really not too sure. At least with this answer there's a bit of mathematical theory involved. If the jobs that are disappearing were all close the general average then it implies that the job loss is NOT affecting the average... but it still says nothing to if the new jobs are actually helping it go up or down. This at least provides a basis on which to defend against the notion that "job loss is hurting our average."
E) Comparing the city to suburbs seems out of scope.
Very curious to see OA. My confidence in D) is like 60% It should be fun to retroactively reason afterwards if it's not D.
The conclusion states that "average paycheck has been getting steadily bigger". Thus, A provides a comparison of the mayor's earlier tenure pays and after 3 years, the paychecks have steadily increased. _________________
press kudos, if you like the explanation, appreciate the effort or encourage people to respond.
A. We don't know how long Mayor Delmont has been in office (we know he is still in office). It seems to support the argument, but mentioning 'earlier in Mayor Delmont's tenure' casts doubts on the assertions of the advertisement. What if those jobs created at that time had a really low pay? B. It may be a reason why it was easy to increase the average pay, but it doesn't support the argument too strongly. C. Doesn't support the argument at all. D. It seems to support the argument of the advertisement. If the jobs eliminated had an average pay, and meantime the new created jobs have higher than average pay, then the average paycheck in the city has been getting bigger. This new information is consistent with the argument. E. Compares two different subjects.
Between the options, D is the one that most strengthens the argument in the advertisement.
The argument says that critics say jobs were lost but in next line not only plugs this gap by stating more jobs were created then eliminated but also open a new idea about average pay increase. The argument also says Avg pay for new jobs increased every year since Delmonte took the office. so his tenure is successful.
Although all answers look poor ,only B says that pay was 10yr low when he took office and it strengthens claim by reinforcing that new job created raised pay yoy so he is definitely successful.
Re: Mayor Delmonte
03 Jun 2010, 22:52