Mayor Delmonte

Anyone want to try with reasoning?

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.

Although choice A does not sound good as well, I would go with it.

OK guys, the debatable OA is:

C can not be OA, it is actually weakening the argument of political ad.

hey ykaiim, can we also get the OA reasoning from the source?....definitely a weird one.

Sorry Seekmba,

I am affraid I can. This is from online tests from https://www.exampep.com/gmat/

This is the oly CR question in test1 which irritated me. But, I dont recommend this site for free tests.

What about B??

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.