Yorco and Zortech are two corporations that employ large numbers of fu

I will go for D. Though I am also inclined towards B also but I think D provides an ASSUMPTIOM that if not specified can be called for DEBATE.

D for me.

Saurabh Malpani

[quote="pb_india"]Which of the following most logically completes the argument?


(A)Zortech spends a higher total sum per year than Yorco does to provide its hourly wage workers with benefits other than wages
non-wage benefits has nothing to do with wages
Wrong

(B)the work performed by hourly wage workers at Zortech does not require a significantly higher level of skill than the work performed by hourly wage workers at Yorco does
Doesn't follow the comparison laid out in the question. It is perfectly possible that Z has easier jobs but still higher wages
Wrong

(C)the proportion of all company employees who are hourly wage workers is significantly greater at Yorco than it is at Zortech
Contraditary with info already provided
Wrong

(D)overtime work, which is paid at a substantially higher rate than work done during the regular work week, is rare at both Yorco and Zortech
Correct. If over time is not rare in Y but rare in Z, then it might be a reason why Y spends more money than Z, even if Y's average wage is not higher than Z. Getting rid of this probability will be able to support the conclusion arrived in the last sentence of the opening question

(E)the highest hourly wages paid at Yorco are higher than the highest hourly wages paid at Zortech
Highest wage says nothing about average wages
Wrong

You're right, D should be the answer. If overtime work is rare, then the reason Yorco ended up with more wages paid out is because they have a higher per hour wage compared to Zortech.

E is irrelevant. the highest or lowest salary comparison has no impact anywhere on the conclusion in that conclusion talks of the average hourly wages.
D removes a possibility of overtime salary and hence strengthens the conclusion.

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?
Yorco and Zortech are two corporations that employ large numbers of full-time workers who are paid by the hour. Publicly available records indicate that Yorco employs roughly the same number of such hourly wage workers as Zortech
does but spends a far higher total sum per year on wages for such workers. Therefore, hourly wages must be higher, on average, at Yorco than at Zortech, since __.
A. Zortech spends a higher total sum per year than Yorco does to provide its hourly wage workers with benefits other than wages

B.the work performed by hourly wage workers at Zortech does not require a significantly higher level of skill than the work performed by hourly wage workers at Yorco does

C. the proportion of all company employees who are hourly wage workers is significantly greater at Yorco than it is at Zortech

D.overtime work, which is paid at a substantially higher rate than work done during the regular work week, is rare at both Yorco and Zortech

E. the highest hourly wages paid at Yorco are higher than the highest hourly wages paid at Zortech

can anyone please explain why E is wrong ?


The following ones are the given premises.

1) No. Employees at Yorco (Ny) = Nz (Zortech)
2) Total Income at Yorco (Ty) > Tz

E is wrong because, two things can happen.

1) Number of the highest hourly wages paid Employees at Yorco > No. Highest hr paid at Zortech
Then Ty > Tz

2) No. highest hr paid at Yorco < No. highest hr paid at Zortech
Then Tz < Ty

The trouble is we don't know the above two numbers(the proportion of them). Because the second case can reverse the whole premises, E should be the wrong choice.

Please correct me if wrong

Also, you have to understand that when a "complete the passage" question ends with 'since', it is basically an assumption question.

Hence, with this added knowledge, if you look at the question, what it's really saying is that despite the fact that both the companies employ roughly the same number of hourly wage workers, the fact that Yorco spends a far higher sum on wages of the said workers MUST be attributed to the fact that Yorco has higher hourly wages BECAUSE there is no other factor that points to the contrary.

The underlined portion is the assumption, and choice D removes the possibility of another factor as the reason behind Yorco's higher expenditure on hourly wages. Thus, choice D gives weight to the implied assumption and is the correct answer choice.

Hope that helped.

Employee of Y and Z are equal.
Y spends more than Z
Then Y average wage paid to the employees should be more than Z. Hence E)

D) cannot be the answer as the option doesn't explain anything. We need a reason for the discrepancy as we have "since".

One way to support an Argument is to remove the alternate cause of the result. D exactly does that.

Conclusion : "More Money Spent So more hourly wages are more". D removes the alternate Cause by saying both the companies doesnt spend extra Money for OverTime done by employee.

This question teaches you a lesson on alternative cause using reverse psychology.
GMAC sternly speaking: "stick to the rules even if you see demons on the way!"

Number of hourly paid workers in Y equals the number of hourly paid workers in Z.
Y's total wage is greater than Z's total wage.
Therefore on the average the hourly wage in Y is higher than hourly wage in Z.

The conclusion above depends on which assumption?
[b]HKD1710 here we go!

(Aside: When I see this type of question I just say HKD!. that's my abracadabra)


One thing that could make the conclusion not to hold is an alternative cause. e.g. only Y or Y and Z have other wage payments to make other than the hourly wage payment.

D.A. Only D defends this argument best from this IDEA.

Now good Mr Dubey tell me, what will you change in A so as to make it a certain D.A. if D doesn't exist?
You answer this puzzle I'll duff hat.[/b]

It would be D because Zorco gets paid a better hourly wage and since overtime work is rare for both companies.

Here you go Nez,

Let me speak about the choice E as well. It says highest wages are higher at yorco. what about the the lower wages are also high at yorco. conclusion talks about avergae not values that constitute it because these values are not talked about and author di not give any clue about these.

Premise: No of workers at Y = No of workers at Z

Premise: Sum spend at Y >>>> Sum spend at Z

Conclusion: Average at Y > Average at Y

premise: Unstated

Conclusion is STRONG here. We need to DEFEND it.

Structure
Premise ..> Premise ..> "THEREFORE...CONCLUSION....SINCE....PREMISE." So this premise is NOT STATED (you see we need to fill it.) As already mentioned conclusion has no GAPS it is strong so we need a fact to defend.

Now looking at choice A.

A.Zortech spends a higher total sum per year than Yorco does to provide its hourly wage workers with benefits other than wages

so first of all this is a weaken-er. correct choice should be DEFENDER NOT weaken-er. how can A be right???

Correct choice definitly need to express the idea that "it is just about the wages which are spent on the hours worked by these n number of employees" A FACT that would align to this idea would be defender assumptions.

DA-1: There is no overtime (full-time can do overtime - so in scope)
DA-2: (generalization) ANY IDEA THAT DOES NOT NEGATE THE PREMISES AND STILL BREAK THE CONCLUSION, IF NEGATED, BECOMES OUR DA. Any you can think of?

So D definitly alogns with the idea while A don't.

if you anyhow thinking that IF "D" WERE NOT THERE IN CHOICES AND A WAS WRITTEN AS "Yorco spends a higher total sum per year than Zortech does to provide its hourly wage workers with benefits other than wages" WOULD ONLY BE A WEAKNER.

So you can either use a negative word OR not, you can save your conclusion by writing choice as A as followings:

"Total sum per year spent by Yorco AND Zortech relate ONLY to wages of such workers for their per hour work"
"Total sum per year spent by Yorco AND Zortech DOES NOT include any other expense on the workers"

NOTE: if you start thinking of finding to many defenders then it will confuse you because then you may sometime get carried away with out of SCOPE choices. NEW INFORMATION whenever brought in it also has to be in scope. Idea is to stick to keywords that constitute the argument while saving the conclusion by giving a FACT.

GMATNinja VeritasPrepKarishma

Hi Experts
Can you explain which mathematical equations fits in here?

Ah, if only the Verbal section could be conquered with mathematical formulas! As described in our CR Guide for Beginners, you have to get used to thinking structurally.

So what's the conclusion here? It's that "hourly wages must be higher, on average, at Yorco than at Zortech." How does the author arrive at that conclusion?

• Yorco employs roughly the same number of full-time hourly wage workers as Zortech does.
• Yorco spends a far higher total sum per year on wages for such workers than Zortech does.

We need something that links these facts to the conclusion. In other words, given that both companies employee the same number of such workers, how can we conclude that the reason Yorco spends more on such workers is that Yorco's hourly wages are higher? What if the employees at Yorco simply work longer hours than employees at Zortech? In that case, Yorco could spend more on such workers each year even though they pay the same wage per hour.

Choice (D) rules out that possibility, thus filling a possible hole in the author's logic.

Sure, we could come up with a couple of math equations, but that's a habit that won't help you much on CR in general.

Yorco and Zortech are two corporations that employ large numbers of full-time workers who are paid by the hour. Publicly available records indicate that Yorco employs roughly the same number of such hourly wage workers as Zortech does but spends a far higher total sum per year on wages for such workers. Therefore, hourly wages must be higher, on average, at Yorco than at Zortech, since _____.

# of hourly wage workers at Yorco = # of hourly wage workers at Zortech
Total sum per year spending on wages at Yorco > Total sum per year spending on wages at Yorco
Conclusion:
Hourly wages, on average, at Yorco > Hourly wages, on average, at Zortech

Assumption:
Avg hourly wages at Yorco = [Total sum per year spending on wages at Yorco /# of hourly wage workers at Yorco]*Number of hours worked per year at Yorco
Avg hourly wages at Zortech = [Total sum per year spending on wages at Zortech/# of hourly wage workers at Zortech] * Number of hours worked per year at Zortech

Since denominator is the same, the author's conclusion can be true if the number of hours worked per year at Yorco is equal to or greater than the number of hours worked per year at Zortech.
Any answer choice which strengthens this point is the answer.

(A) Zortech spends a higher total sum per year than Yorco does to provide its hourly wage workers with benefits other than wages - Irrelevant to our analysis above

(B) the work performed by hourly wage workers at Zortech does not require a significantly higher level of skill than the work performed by hourly wage workers at Yorco does - Tries to trick us into thinking that skill level has something to do with hourly wages. Reject

(C) the proportion of all company employees who are hourly wage workers is significantly greater at Yorco than it is at Zortech -
We know from the premise that both companies employ large number of hourly wage workers and as per public records, the numbers at both places are the same. We definitely don't know anything about this.

(D) overtime work, which is paid at a substantially higher rate than work done during the regular work week, is rare at both Yorco and Zortech -
If the overtime work is rare at both companies, then probably both companies are working the same number of hours per year. It strengthens the point mentioned in the analysis above, hence the answer.

(E) the highest hourly wages paid at Yorco are higher than the highest hourly wages paid at Zortech
Both companies have the same number of hourly wage employees. If the highest hourly wage paid at Yorco is higher than the highest hourly wages paid at Zortech, that just strengthens the point of the premise which states that - Yorco spends a far higher total sum per year on wages for such workers. It doesn't help us answer why the hourly wage, on average, of workers at Yorco must be higher than the hourly wage, on average, of workers at Zortech.

The conclusion of the argument is that hourly wages must be higher, on average, at Yorco than at Zortech.

The given premises are that Yorco and Zortech are two corporations that employ large numbers of full-time workers who are paid by the hour. The passage also gives us the information that Yorco employs roughly the same number of workers as Zortech does but spends a far higher total sum per year on wages for such workers.

The question requires us to complete the argument by providing a reason for the conclusion that the hourly wages must be higher at Yorco.

Option A mentions benefits other than wages. However, the point of comparison in this passage is the amount spent by each company on wages. So, Option A can be eliminated.

Option B mentions the skill required by the workers. If this option stated that workers at Yorco need a higher level of skill and therefore must be paid higher wages, this option could have completed the argument. However, this option states that workers at Zortech do not need a higher level of skill than workers at Yorco do. So, Option B can be eliminated.

Option C contradicts one of the premises, which is that the two companies employ roughly the same number of employees. So, Option C can be eliminated.

Since the conclusion mentions hourly wages on average, the highest hourly wage in each company is irrelevant. So, Option E can also be eliminated.

One possible expense for the companies is overtime wages. If the two companies employ roughly the same number of employees, then the other expense could be wages paid to workers for overtime work. Option D provides the reason for stating that hourly wages on average must be higher at Yorco by negating the other possible way in which the company would have to spend more money. Therefore, D is the most appropriate option.

Jayanthi Kumar.

Only, D supports the conclusion even though, there is less scope of support here!!!

Pretty straight forward !!

Yorco and Zortech have the same number of workers employed on per hour basis. But Yorco spends more on wages???? HOW ????

The 2 plausible reasons that immediately come to mind are :-

(1) The same number of workers get same $ per/hr in both companies but Yorko employees work for more hours in total.

or

(2) The same number of employees work for same number of hours in both the companies but $ per/hr is greater at Yorko.


So there you have it. Option D says that reason (1) is not the case. So reason (2) accounts for the above observation.

Option D is our winner.