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

It is currently 02 Aug 2014, 00:54

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

Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Apr 2011
Posts: 17
Followers: 0

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

Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the [#permalink] New post 06 Jun 2011, 00:14
3
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

49% (02:15) correct 51% (01:34) wrong based on 127 sessions
Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the percentage of people who are looking for work but are unable to find it has dropped from 7% to 5% of the total number of people either working or looking for work. These statistics show that it is clear that my administration’s business-friendly policies have helped reduce the level of unemployment among those willing to work.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the politician’s argument relies?



A. The previous administration’s worker re-education program had no significant effect on the unemployment rate.
B. Less than 2% of the population that were working or willing to work at the start of the politician’s term have stopped working or looking for work.
C. None of the new jobs created during the politician’s term went to those who already had jobs.
D. Most of those looking for employment found jobs in the field they were trained in.
E. The politician’s business-friendly policies have had a direct affect on the ability of firms to hire more workers


The answer given is B.I don't understand why....For example,say there are 100 ppl in the workforce(93 working,7 ppl willing to work but jobless)....The argument says this 7% unemployment rate goes down to 5%...There are many possible cases now....

Case 1:Nobody withdraws from the workforce
the split becomes (95 working,5 jobless) and this favor's the politician's stance.

Case 2:People withdraw from the workforce...here again we have 2 sub cases.
2.1. people who were working withdraw from the workforce.
In this case, the workforce (denominator)shrinks whereas the number of jobless people remains
unaffected....In such a case the unemployment rate definitely increases

2.2.Jobless people withdraw.
This is the case in question for this problem.In this case ,both the numerator and denominator decrease...I
am not very sure how a figure of 2% is arrived at whether the net effect of such a situation is always a
resultant decrease.In this case say 1 jobless person withdraws,we are left with 99 in the denominator and
5 (5% of 99 approx) in the numerator.This means there are 5 unemployed people and 94 employed
people.This is a desirable scenario compared to a (93,7) figure

Now, consider 3 jobless people withdrawing.....Now we have 97 people in the dnominator (5 unemployed,92
employed ...is this desirable or not??I am not sure....


Any help is welcome..

Regards,
Vignesh
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA
VP
VP
avatar
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1365
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 132 [0], given: 10

GMAT Tests User
Re: difficult CR question [#permalink] New post 06 Jun 2011, 01:07
There is a reasoning gap for the statistics mentioned in the argument here.Hence a supporter answer choice is needed.

Between A and B.

A gives a defender answer choice warding off external effect. POE.

B Out of 100 people looking for work, 7 not working old
out of 100 people looking for work, 5 not working new

negating - more than 2% people have stopped looking for work.

out of 97 people looking for work, 5 not working possible for the new condition.

This crashes the conclusion that the schemes have brought down the unemployment index.

Hence B here.
_________________

Visit -- http://www.sustainable-sphere.com/
Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 17 Apr 2011
Posts: 17
Followers: 0

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

Re: difficult CR question [#permalink] New post 08 Jun 2011, 07:18
I think the key to this question is the interpretation that all the percentages involved are with respect to the first year.....Pl correct me if I am wrong...
Regards,
Vignesh
CEO
CEO
User avatar
Status: Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 2793
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
Schools: ISB '15 (M)
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35
Followers: 177

Kudos [?]: 903 [0], given: 235

GMAT Tests User Reviews Badge
Re: difficult CR question [#permalink] New post 08 Jun 2011, 09:15
1 KUDOS received
Math Forum Moderator
avatar
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 2048
Followers: 127

Kudos [?]: 888 [1] , given: 376

GMAT Tests User
Re: difficult CR question [#permalink] New post 08 Jun 2011, 12:58
1
This post received
KUDOS
This so called CR question is more difficult that the most difficult word problem on percentages.
_________________

~fluke

Get the best GMAT Prep Resources with GMAT Club Premium Membership

Cornell-Johnson Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 04 Mar 2013
Posts: 62
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V44
GPA: 3.66
WE: Operations (Manufacturing)
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 33 [0], given: 25

Reviews Badge
Re: difficult CR question [#permalink] New post 26 Jun 2013, 18:52
amit2k9 wrote:
There is a reasoning gap for the statistics mentioned in the argument here.Hence a supporter answer choice is needed.

Between A and B.

A gives a defender answer choice warding off external effect. POE.

B Out of 100 people looking for work, 7 not working old
out of 100 people looking for work, 5 not working new

negating - more than 2% people have stopped looking for work.

out of 97 people looking for work, 5 not working possible for the new condition.

This crashes the conclusion that the schemes have brought down the unemployment index.

Hence B here.


Sorry for reopening this old argument. But whats wrong with E
B seems to indicate that less than 2% for example 19 out of a 1000 people have dropped out of the work force and therefor the % of employed has improved but the actual number of people employed might not have increased.

So for the politician to claim credit for this improvement the actual numbers employed should have increased. Wouldnt option E be the assumption that the politician would make to supplement his claim

Or is it that GMAT considers all politicians to be statistic manipulators :evil:
_________________

When you feel like giving up, remember why you held on for so long in the first place.

3 KUDOS received
Verbal Forum Moderator
Verbal Forum Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2012
Posts: 992
Location: United States
Followers: 113

Kudos [?]: 1114 [3] , given: 118

Re: difficult CR question [#permalink] New post 26 Jun 2013, 21:14
3
This post received
KUDOS
aceacharya wrote:
amit2k9 wrote:
There is a reasoning gap for the statistics mentioned in the argument here.Hence a supporter answer choice is needed.

Between A and B.

A gives a defender answer choice warding off external effect. POE.

B Out of 100 people looking for work, 7 not working old
out of 100 people looking for work, 5 not working new

negating - more than 2% people have stopped looking for work.

out of 97 people looking for work, 5 not working possible for the new condition.

This crashes the conclusion that the schemes have brought down the unemployment index.

Hence B here.


Sorry for reopening this old argument. But whats wrong with E
B seems to indicate that less than 2% for example 19 out of a 1000 people have dropped out of the work force and therefor the % of employed has improved but the actual number of people employed might not have increased.

So for the politician to claim credit for this improvement the actual numbers employed should have increased. Wouldnt option E be the assumption that the politician would make to supplement his claim

Or is it that GMAT considers all politicians to be statistic manipulators :evil:


Hi aceacharya

I'm glad to help.

Before answer you questions, please make sure you understand the fact correctly:

Fact: The percentage of people who are looking for work but are unable to find it has dropped from 7% to 5% of the total number of people either working or looking for work.
==> The formula is:
The ratio = Number of people are unable to find job/ [Number of people working + Number of people are looking for job]

The decrease from 7% to 5% only makes sense if The denominator [Number of people working + Number of people are looking for job] increases or does not change.
If the denominator decreases as well, The percentage decrease does not make any point.


E) The politician’s business-friendly policies have had a direct affect on the ability of firms to hire more workers
The firms hire more people ==> Number of people get hired increase. But what happens if many people looking for job STOP finding job or many people who are working QUIT their job ==> The denominator will decrease. Clearly, the reduction to 5% does not make any sense ==> E cannot be the assumption.


B) Less than 2% of the population that were working or willing to work at the start of the politician’s term have stopped working or looking for work.
B means the denominator DOES NOT DECREASE too much to make the percentage reduction be nonsensical.

You say “the % of employed has improved but the actual number of people employed might not have increased” is not correct. If the denominator decreases less than 2%, the number of people get hired must increase.

I will borrow your example:
There are 1000 people (working + looking job).
Before: 7% are unable to find job ==> number of people employed = 1000 – 70 = 930
After: 5% are unable to find job + 1.5% (less than 2%) stop looking for job ==> number of people employed = 1000 – 50 – 15 = 935

Hence, B is correct.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMV Chief of Design.

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 66
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 14 [0], given: 11

Re: difficult CR question [#permalink] New post 14 Jun 2014, 02:27
amit2k9 wrote:
There is a reasoning gap for the statistics mentioned in the argument here.Hence a supporter answer choice is needed.

Between A and B.

A gives a defender answer choice warding off external effect. POE.

B Out of 100 people looking for work, 7 not working old
out of 100 people looking for work, 5 not working new

negating - more than 2% people have stopped looking for work.

out of 97 people looking for work, 5 not working possible for the new condition.

This crashes the conclusion that the schemes have brought down the unemployment index.

Hence B here.

Hi,
I didnt exactly get what you mean by saying that A gives a defender answer choice warding off external effect.
Like you negated option B, if we negate option A, we have that The previous administration's worker reeducation program had a significant effect on the unemployment rate. It means if The previous administration's worker reeducation program have had a significant effect, then this administration's business friendly policies have not done anything to reduce the unemployment rate. This crashes the conclusion.
Though, I agree on what you have done by negating option B, but since we are talking about an assumption, we need a building block between the conclusion and the premise. The conclusion here talks about the 'ROLE OF BUSINESS FRIENDLY POLICIES IN REDUCING UNEMPLOYMENT' while the premise is the stats. We need an answer actually linking the two. On negating option B we can say that the stats are disturbed and thus, unemployment might not have reduced, but here we in no way talk about the way i.e. THE BUSINESS POLICIES OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION' of reducing the unemployment.
I think if the question asked us to strengthen the conclusion, then option B could have been the answer as then on negating the option, the premise was attacked. But here, since we are asked about the assumption, we cannot just mark this answer as it disturbed the stats. Rather, we need an option to link the conclusion and premise.
IMO, the answer should be A.
I hope you get what I am trying to say.
I would definitely like some expert to comment on it. @Magoosh
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 25
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 9

Re: difficult CR question [#permalink] New post 15 Jun 2014, 06:34
pqhai wrote:
aceacharya wrote:
amit2k9 wrote:
There is a reasoning gap for the statistics mentioned in the argument here.Hence a supporter answer choice is needed.

Between A and B.

A gives a defender answer choice warding off external effect. POE.

B Out of 100 people looking for work, 7 not working old
out of 100 people looking for work, 5 not working new

negating - more than 2% people have stopped looking for work.

out of 97 people looking for work, 5 not working possible for the new condition.

This crashes the conclusion that the schemes have brought down the unemployment index.

Hence B here.


Sorry for reopening this old argument. But whats wrong with E
B seems to indicate that less than 2% for example 19 out of a 1000 people have dropped out of the work force and therefor the % of employed has improved but the actual number of people employed might not have increased.

So for the politician to claim credit for this improvement the actual numbers employed should have increased. Wouldnt option E be the assumption that the politician would make to supplement his claim

Or is it that GMAT considers all politicians to be statistic manipulators :evil:


Hi aceacharya

I'm glad to help.

Before answer you questions, please make sure you understand the fact correctly:

Fact: The percentage of people who are looking for work but are unable to find it has dropped from 7% to 5% of the total number of people either working or looking for work.
==> The formula is:
The ratio = Number of people are unable to find job/ [Number of people working + Number of people are looking for job]

The decrease from 7% to 5% only makes sense if The denominator [Number of people working + Number of people are looking for job] increases or does not change.
If the denominator decreases as well, The percentage decrease does not make any point.


E) The politician’s business-friendly policies have had a direct affect on the ability of firms to hire more workers
The firms hire more people ==> Number of people get hired increase. But what happens if many people looking for job STOP finding job or many people who are working QUIT their job ==> The denominator will decrease. Clearly, the reduction to 5% does not make any sense ==> E cannot be the assumption.


B) Less than 2% of the population that were working or willing to work at the start of the politician’s term have stopped working or looking for work.
B means the denominator DOES NOT DECREASE too much to make the percentage reduction be nonsensical.

You say “the % of employed has improved but the actual number of people employed might not have increased” is not correct. If the denominator decreases less than 2%, the number of people get hired must increase.

I will borrow your example:
There are 1000 people (working + looking job).
Before: 7% are unable to find job ==> number of people employed = 1000 – 70 = 930
After: 5% are unable to find job + 1.5% (less than 2%) stop looking for job ==> number of people employed = 1000 – 50 – 15 = 935

Hence, B is correct.

Hope it helps.



Nice interpretation.

I always find that setting up a ratio for these percentage-type CR problems is a great way to find the answer.

In this particular case, Choice B is the only one that draws a bridge between the premise and conclusion --- directly affecting "the demonator in the equation".
Re: difficult CR question   [#permalink] 15 Jun 2014, 06:34
    Similar topics Author Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
4 Politician: Fewer people are entering the labor market now priyankur_saha@ml.com 33 17 Apr 2009, 10:05
The administration has increased the number of fines for asaf 11 26 Aug 2007, 10:43
Politician: Fewer people are entering the labor market now sushom101 12 20 Oct 2005, 10:40
Politician: Fewer people are entering the labor market now WinWinMBA 4 03 May 2005, 16:16
Politician: Fewer people are entering the labor market now vprabhala 8 22 Jan 2005, 10:25
Display posts from previous: Sort by

Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the

  Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


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®.