Find all School-related info fast with the new School-Specific MBA Forum

It is currently 25 Oct 2014, 07:22

Close

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
Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont s critics complain

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 227
Location: Taipei
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont s critics complain [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2006, 07:44
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 0 sessions
Political Advertisement:




Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont’s leadership. Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than were eliminated, but the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office. So there can be no question that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.


Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument in the advertisement?



A:The average pay for jobs created in the city during the past three years was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmont’s tenure.

B:Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.

C:Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.

D:The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.

E:The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 716
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2006, 07:56
I think it is A. Explain if it is right.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1176
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2006, 08:08
I am for A too.
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 10 Oct 2005
Posts: 531
Location: US
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 8 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2006, 08:18
A is the answer
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 06 May 2006
Posts: 782
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2006, 10:44
A for me as well.

The choice to be made is b/w A and B.

B does not refer to the increase in the average wages during the Mayor's tenure. A does.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1270
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2006, 13:23
B:Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.

If the avg pay in the city was the lowest then the assertion that the average paycheck in the city is getting bigger is true.

It was between A & B; A refers to three years which threw a wrench in it for me.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 25 Jun 2006
Posts: 1176
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 44 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2006, 17:23
haas_mba07 wrote:
B:Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.

If the avg pay in the city was the lowest then the assertion that the average paycheck in the city is getting bigger is true.

It was between A & B; A refers to three years which threw a wrench in it for me.



B actually weakens it!

If it was 10 year low when he took office, he did not have to do much work and the salary would increase by itself.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1270
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 39 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2006, 17:56
I guess you are right...

Shouldn't try to answer questions at work... ;-)

tennis_ball wrote:
haas_mba07 wrote:
B:Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.

If the avg pay in the city was the lowest then the assertion that the average paycheck in the city is getting bigger is true.

It was between A & B; A refers to three years which threw a wrench in it for me.



B actually weakens it!

If it was 10 year low when he took office, he did not have to do much work and the salary would increase by itself.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 1026
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2006, 18:53
haas_mba07 wrote:
I guess you are right...

Shouldn't try to answer questions at work... ;-)

tennis_ball wrote:
haas_mba07 wrote:
B:Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.

If the avg pay in the city was the lowest then the assertion that the average paycheck in the city is getting bigger is true.

It was between A & B; A refers to three years which threw a wrench in it for me.



B actually weakens it!

If it was 10 year low when he took office, he did not have to do much work and the salary would increase by itself.


I still think B is right.

What is the conclusion?

"So there can be no question that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger"

Is n't B strengthening this conclusion?
_________________

The path is long, but self-surrender makes it short;
the way is difficult, but perfect trust makes it easy.

VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1136
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2

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

 [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2006, 23:26
Hmm....I'll go for D. Will explain if right...
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 21 Sep 2006, 23:44
I would go for (A) too.(D) does not support the argument that the new jobs created have a much better pay.
_________________

A well-balanced person is one who has a drink in each of his hands.

VP
VP
avatar
Joined: 21 Mar 2006
Posts: 1136
Location: Bangalore
Followers: 2

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

 [#permalink] New post 22 Sep 2006, 00:02
sangarelli wrote:
I would go for (A) too.(D) does not support the argument that the new jobs created have a much better pay.


Conclusion is: So there can be no question that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

Not the average pay of the new jobs, the average paycheck in the city (old AND new jobs).
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 582
Location: France
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 19 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 22 Sep 2006, 02:28
A.

D:The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.

I think it weakens the conclusion or at least doest hurt it.
If there is a job paid 1000$ (=an existing job or a created one), the average paycheck doesn't change.
Better would it be, if eliminated jobs with low salaries were replaced with higher salaries jobs=> average paycheck wd ncrease.
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 198
Schools: Olin Business School - Washington University
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 22 Sep 2006, 04:01
Tough but saying A
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 801
Location: BULGARIA
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 22 Sep 2006, 05:51
I also will go for D)
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 327
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 22 Sep 2006, 06:11
kripalkavi wrote:
sangarelli wrote:
I would go for (A) too.(D) does not support the argument that the new jobs created have a much better pay.


Conclusion is: So there can be no question that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

Not the average pay of the new jobs, the average paycheck in the city (old AND new jobs).



The average pay would go up only if the new jobs so created pay more.
_________________

A well-balanced person is one who has a drink in each of his hands.

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 282
Location: New York
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 22 Sep 2006, 07:05
Official Answer please
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Aug 2006
Posts: 227
Location: Taipei
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 27 Sep 2006, 11:39
Matrix02 wrote:
Official Answer please


OA is D
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 30 Aug 2006
Posts: 374
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 0

 [#permalink] New post 27 Sep 2006, 12:47
D, because if we have lost average jobs and supplanted them with better than average ones then the average must have increased.

The clue here that should set bells ringing is the comparison of the new jobs average to the existing average and then inferring that the total average is increasing.

What if the only large local employer closed (say IBM) at the start of Delmont's tenure? We could assume that 100's of well paid jobs were lost, leaving some pretty poor ones behind. Walmart then buy the IBM factory 6months later and turn it into a call center, recruiting all the unemployed (i.e. low ave salary) IBM workers at lower pay. The average has now increased but is still less than during the IBM heydays. D counters this by saying that the jobs lost were of average salary.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 385
Location: TX
Followers: 1

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

 [#permalink] New post 27 Sep 2006, 16:39
D it should be

Argument
So there can be no question that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.


From A
We know that the average pay was only getting bigger during the last 3 years. So it weakens the argument that the avg. was getting bigger throughout the Mayors tenure.

D
From the stem we know that the "average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office"
And we know that the average pay of jobs eliminated has remained constant during Mayor Delmont’s tenure .

Hence the average pay only could have increased.
  [#permalink] 27 Sep 2006, 16:39
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmonts critics complain ricokevin 6 15 Feb 2007, 00:20
Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont s critics complain johnycute 7 18 Dec 2006, 06:44
Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont s critics complain nakib77 12 19 Dec 2005, 03:52
Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont's critics complain taquanghai 2 23 Jul 2005, 09:15
1 Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont s critics complain chunjuwu 14 14 Dec 2004, 06:16
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont s critics complain

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 21 posts ] 



GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Privacy Policy| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group and phpBB SEO

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.