Columnist: In our nation, the government keeps no general statistics

Question

Columnist: In our nation, the government keeps no general statistics on how many people work in various industries. However, the government lists twice as many job titles pertaining to job categories in health care as job titles pertaining to categories in finance. This indicates that about twice as many people in our nation work in health care as in finance.

The columnist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A) fails to adequately address the possibility that there are considerably fewer job categories overall in finance than in health care

(B) confuses a claim about government statistics regarding job titles with a related claim about government statistics regarding the numbers of workers in various industries

(C) does not recognize that some job titles pertain to job categories that are in both health care and finance

(D) confuses a claim made about numbers of job titles with a claim made about numbers of job categories to which those titles pertain

(E) overlooks the possibility that the average number of workers per job title in finance differs substantially from the average number per job title in health care

MartyMurray · Accepted Answer

Columnist: In our nation, the government keeps no general statistics on how many people work in various industries. However, the government lists twice as many job titles pertaining to job categories in health care as job titles pertaining to categories in finance. This indicates that about twice as many people in our nation work in health care as in finance.

The columnnist concludes the following:

This indicates that about twice as many people in our nation work in health care as in finance.

The support for the conclusion is the following:

the government lists twice as many job titles pertaining to job categories in health care as job titles pertaining to categories in finance

We see that the columnist has jumped from evidence about "job titles" to a conclusion about how "many people" work in different fields.

The columnist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

This question is a Logical Flaw question, and the correct answer will describe a flaw in how the argument works.

(A) fails to adequately address the possibility that there are considerably fewer job categories overall in finance than in health care

The argument simply doesn't do what this choice says since the argument is indirectly based on the idea that there are fewer job categories in finance than in health care.

Eliminate.

(B) confuses a claim about government statistics regarding job titles with a related claim about government statistics regarding the numbers of workers in various industries

This choice is close to what's wrong with the argument since the argument does make an unsupported leap from "a claim about government statistics regarding job titles" to a conclusion about "the numbers of workers" in two industries.

Notice, however, that making that unsupported leap is not the same as confusing two claims about "government statistics."

For one thing, supporting a conclusion with evidence is different from confusing two claims, even if an unsupported leap is made from the evidence to the conclusion.

Also, the argument does not even involve a "claim about government statistics regarding the numbers of workers in various industries." After all, the conclusion is not about "government statistics regarding the numbers of workers." It's about the numbers of workers themselves.

Eliminate.

(C) does not recognize that some job titles pertain to job categories that are in both health care and finance

It's true that the argument does not give any consideration to the fact that some job titles pertain to job categories that are in both health care and finance.

At the same time, the fact that the argument does not do so is not a flaw. After all, even if some job titles pertain to job categories that are in both health care and finance, there are still more titles for health care than for finance. So, the support provided by the evidence is not affected by what this choice mentions.

Eliminate.

(D) confuses a claim made about numbers of job titles with a claim made about numbers of job categories to which those titles pertain

The argument uses as evidence a statement about numbers of "job titles." Yes, those job titles are "job titles pertaining to job categories." Nevertheless, the argument does not involve any claim about "numbers of job categories."

So, the argument does not confuse "a claim made about numbers of job titles with a claim made about numbers of job categories." It goes directly from "numbers of job titles" to a conclusion about how many people work in each industry without touching on "numbers of job categories."

Eliminate.

(E) overlooks the possibility that the average number of workers per job title in finance differs substantially from the average number per job title in health care

This choice perfectly captures what's wrong with this argument.

As we saw above, the conclusion is about the numbers of workers in healthcare and in finance whereas the support is about the number of job titles in each industry.

In going from the evidence to the conclusion, the columnist has overlooked the possibility that the evidence does not support the conclusion because there could many more workers per job title in finance than in healthcare. Because of that possibiliy, even though there are more health-care job titles than finance job titles, it doesn't necessarily follow that there are more workers in health care than in finance.

In other words, in making the jump from evidence about job titles to the conclusion about numbers of workers, the columnist "overlooks the possibility that the average number of workers per job title in finance differs substantially from the average number per job title in health care."

Keep

Correct answer:  E

SergejK · Answer

This is such an unrealistic scenario that I thought nobody will be so dumb to equate number of titles to actual filled jobs in 2 different industries so that I concluded that the argument must talk about filled jobs, hence decided for choice C. However, there are many cases in official questions where unrealistic scenarios are presented and I guess one has to accept them and go through them word for word. Hard pill to swallow to be honest.

DmitryFarber · Answer

Well, the whole point of CR is that the arguments are flawed. Sometimes the flaws are subtle, and sometimes they're more blatant, but the reasoning always has to be "dumb" in some way. Otherwise, there would be no missing assumptions and no way to strengthen or weaken the argument. It's not about realism; we just have to identify how the stated conclusion diverges from what we know from the premises.

mbaprepavi · Answer

The columnist's argument is based on the premise that the number of job titles in health care is twice as many as those in finance, and therefore, twice as many people must work in health care as in finance. However,  the argument makes an assumption that the number of job titles correlates directly with the number of people working in those industries, which is not necessarily the case.

Let's break down each option:

(A) fails to adequately address the possibility that there are considerably fewer job categories overall in finance than in health care: This is a relevant concern, but it doesn't address the main flaw in the argument, which is the  assumption that the number of job titles reflects the number of worker s.

(B) confuses a claim about government statistics regarding job titles with a related claim about government statistics regarding the numbers of workers in various industries: This is a critical flaw. The columnist assumes that the number of job titles correlates directly with the number of workers.  However , job titles don't necessarily indicate the number of people employed. For example, one job title could correspond to many workers, or there might be variations in the number of workers in different titles. The argument conflates two different things—job titles and workers. - Close second (Can Keep until we come across E)

(C) does not recognize that some job titles pertain to job categories that are in both health care and finance: It doesn't directly address the columnist's  assumption about the relationship between the number of job titles and the number of workers . Out

(D) confuses a claim made about numbers of job titles with a claim made about numbers of job categories to which those titles pertain: The argument is more about assuming a link between job titles and the number of workers, not about the categories themselves. Out.

(E) overlooks the possibility that the average number of workers per job title in finance differs substantially from the average number per job title in health care: 
This option points to a key issue.  Even though there are twice as many job titles in health care ,   each job title might have very different numbers of workers in each industry  .
 If the average number of workers per job title is higher in finance, the  total number of workers in finance could still be comparable to or greater than that in health care .
 
The most critical flaw in the argument is the assumption that the number of job titles correlates directly with the number of workers, without considering the possibility that the number of workers per job title might differ between industries.

Therefore, E

Raman109 · Answer

Columnist: In our nation, the government keeps no general statistics on how many people work in various industries. - Background info.

However, the government lists twice as many job titles pertaining to job categories in health care as job titles pertaining to categories in finance. - So there are two times more job titles (such as VP, AVP, Sr. Director etc. in Job Category say "sales." In healthcare scenario Job Category can be surgeon or nurse, but in Surgeon there can be Cardiac surgeon, Orthopedic surgeon, eye surgeon, surgical nurse etc.) in healthcare that in finance.

This indicates that about twice as many people in our nation work in health care as in finance. - Conclusion. Flaw is "number of job titles" = "number of people." Which is wrong. One Job title say Cardiac surgeon (in Surgeon Job Category) may have say 20,000 surgeons in the country. But Job title of say "analyst" in say "investment baking" or even"banking" as a category may have 200,000 analysts. Average number of people per title may not be same.

The columnist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

(A) fails to adequately address the possibility that there are considerably fewer job categories overall in finance than in health care - "job categories" is not a concern. Irrelevant.

(B) confuses a claim about government statistics regarding job titles with a related claim about government statistics regarding the numbers of workers in various industries - No. There is no confusion. 
There are more job titles - author doesn't dispute that. 
numbers of workers in various industries - the data is not collected - no dispute in the claim. 
Out of scope.

(C) does not recognize that some job titles pertain to job categories that are in both health care and finance - irrelevant.

(D) confuses a claim made about numbers of job titles with a claim made about numbers of job categories to which those titles pertain - no such confusion because there is no relation made between what title corresponds to which category. Irrelevant.

(E) overlooks the possibility that the average number of workers per job title in finance differs substantially from the average number per job title in health care - Yes.

Columnist: In our nation, the government keeps no general statistics

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Columnist: In our nation, the government keeps no general statistics

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards