12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 3: Which of the following

Some critics have suggested that the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland are not necessary. They note that the average income in Nurland is $55,000—well above poverty level and among the highest in the world. While they are correct that the kind of assistance provided by the proposed changes is needed only if a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year, it is still possible that the changes are necessary, since ________________.

(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year
Incorrect. There is no information on how many people are earning between $10k-$20k

(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive
Incorrect. This doesn't explain why the changes to the current social assistance program are necessary

(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year
Incorrect. This doesn't explain why the changes to the current social assistance program are necessary

(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000
Correct. This means that a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year because the average income is $55k. This would mean that the changes to the social assistance program are necessary

(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland
Incorrect. Here we need to argue why the changes are necessary.

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

Some critics have suggested that the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland are not necessary. They note that the average income in Nurland is $55,000—well above poverty level and among the highest in the world. While they are correct that the kind of assistance provided by the proposed changes is needed only if a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year, it is still possible that the changes are necessary, since ________________.

Interpret:
This fill-in-the-blank question is essentially (most likely) is asking us to infer/deduce/conclude, to find a Must-Be-True answer, or to complete some conditional logic or possibly some syllogism. (More below b/c as it is, a conclusion is given, so we need a premise...an assumption that MBT/that is required.)

Premises:
- Passage is regarding Soc Assistance
- Ave income 55,000 (this does NOT require assistance--"well above poverty level.")
- (if the) Proposed changes needed -----> (then/we know for sure) a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year (only if is a necessary condition and indicates conditional logic.)

Conclusion:
the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland are not necessary

The conclusion is an outcome/an effect/a necessary condition

Predict:
We can get to the conclusion ONLY IF we have a sufficient condition that leads to the necessary condition of the conclusion.
i.e. this problem is essentially functioning as an ASSUMPTION, a problem that is missing a premise and the gap (the missing premise) MUST be filled in to logically end in the conclusion given.
i.e. if _____________ -----> then the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland are not necessary
By staying WITHIN the argument given, I expect the answer will relate to: "only if a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year, it is still possible that the changes are necessary"... BUT, this statement will be turned into a SUFFICIENT statement and the necessary will be the conclusion. Furthermore, this statement will be NEGATED because the conclusion is that the social assistance changes are NOT necessary!
i.e., based on the sentence immediately before this... I NEED A CONTRAPOSITIVE!
a substantial portion of the population DOES NOT earns less than $20,000 a year -----> the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland [u]are not necessary
I need to fill in the blank above by indicating that somehow a substantial portion of the population DOES NOT earn less than $20,000 a year. i.e., they DO NOT need assistance!

Now, b/c I have a terrific prediction, I can SKIM the answers (If I don't have a terrific prediction, I must consider every answer carefully and determine what effect it has on the argument and whether it completes the premises allowing the conclusion to be arrived at with valid/appropriate logic.):

D is the correct answer:
(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000
If the median income is this high, and half of the population earns more than $85,000, then the likelihood that a "substantial portion" makes less than $20,000 is LOWERED dramatically. In fact, the chance that more than 50% (a possible interpretation of a "substantial portion") makes less than $20,000 is ZERO!!
This statement is equal to my prediction that a substantial portion of the population DOES NOT earns less than $20,000 a year

To be sure my answer is correct, I will consider the other answers:
(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year
--This does not let me conclude that we do NOT need the proposed changes to the assistance program. Perhaps the changes are still needed for those who make less than 10k or more than 20k. NOT A

(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive
--This also does not let me conclude that we do NOT need the proposed changes to the assistance program. In fact, it could be used as a premise to end in a conclusion that the changes are necessary. NOT B

(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year
--Wonderful, but NOT the answer. It does not let me end in the conclusion that the changes are not needed. It is irrelevant as it relates to arriving at the conclusion. NOT C.

(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland.
--Absolutely irrelevant. Whether or not we know how to fund the changes does not help me know whether the changes are needed or not. Simply stated, this is NOT a premise that allows me to arrive at the conclusion given. NOT E.

In the last line of the paragraph author acknowledges the point of view suggested by the critics , and try to give an explanation for why the changes might be necessary, so any option which takes this though forward will be correct.

(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year - Well if the number of people who earns between $10k-20K per year are not substantial than there is no need to bring the reform - Incorrect
(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive - Doesn't quantify the problem, it is still possible that people who rely on social assistance program form small proportion of the overall population - Incorrect
(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year - Again doesn't quantify the problem we don't know the proportion of people earning less than 20K from overall population - Incorrect
(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000 - Correct , this tells us that overall average is high, because of large disparity of income among people
(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland - Irrelevant- Incorrect

Critics : Mod.Social assistance program not required.
Reason : Avg Income >55,000. Assistance is provided if majority ppl earn < 20000.

Pre-Thinking : What is the Avg is high, Bcs there is disparity in earning. Rich earns a lot while poor earns little.

(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year Irr

(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive Hold, As the majority nee this
(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year Irr, As we are not focused on the effects
(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000 Hold, If median is this high. There is sub-portion of ppl(Nearly 50%) who earn a lot low <25,000 for sure.
(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland
Irr, Not bothered about the source of funding.


Final battle is b/w B & D
B doesn't provide enough data about many. Hence IMO D
median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000

Some critics have suggested that the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland are not necessary. They note that the average income in Nurland is $55,000—well above poverty level and among the highest in the world. While they are correct that the kind of assistance provided by the proposed changes is needed only if a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year, it is still possible that the changes are necessary, since ________________.

The proposed changes are needed only if substantial portion of the population earns less than 20,000 a year.
Average income in Nurland is 55,000 a year.
Now one question comes to my mind (gaps in the argument):
(i) If average is above 55000, does that mean substantial people earn more than 20,000?

Further, we have to point out the reason as to why this proposed changes could be beneficial for Nurland.
What if majority of people earn substantially greater than average and the remaining substantially less than average and thus making up for average to be 55,000

(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year No this does not provide the reason as to why the changes could be beneficial because we don't know as to how many people fall in this bracket.

(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive Since many cannot be quantified and can be used to refer to a non-significant portion of the population. Therefore, incorrect

(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year again this does not help to identify the people having income less than 20,000 a year.

(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000 Correct, If the median is above 85000 meaning thereby that half of the people earn more than 85000 and the remaining half might earn less than 20000 and still the average could be greater than 55000. Therefore, this might be helpful.

(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland Incorrect, out of scope as we are concerned about whether the proposed changes will be beneficial or not.

While they are correct that the kind of assistance provided by the proposed changes is needed only if a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year, it is still possible that the changes are necessary, since ____

We have to strenghen the argument by providing options which will ensure that there are substancial people below 20K Dollars a year.

Option Analysis:
(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year - Irrelevant

(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive - Irrelevant as it doesnt strengthen the conclusion

(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year - Shell Option- it doesnt strengthen the conclusion.

(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000 - correct option - as it says 50% of population are beyond $85K and the average is $55K means there are substancial people around 20K so that the average is 55K.

(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland - Irrelevant

Option D is Correct option

bb Bunuel
Not entirely satisfied with the OE. While the OE takes into account the possibility of having a substantial amount of people below $20,000 it does not address the other end of the spectrum that potentially nobody could be earning less than $20,000 or the number of people may not be substantial.
However, choice A gives definite proof that people do exist in the bracket of $10,000 to $20,000 who potentially do not benefit from the existing scheme and hence the new changes apply to them.
I'm not entirely convinced that A is a great answer too but I believe both A and D have comparable chances.

The right answer has only one explicit goal: to **increase the likelihood** that a *substantial portion* (a somewhat vague GMAT term, but basically it means 'you know, not like .5%') of the population earns less than 20K a year.

Answer A does not do that. While it says the current assistance program doesn't help people who earn between 10K and 20K, it gives no sense of whether or not the people in that category constitute a 'substantial portion' of the population. It could be virtually nobody. Now--we might still desire a social program that DOES help those people, so we might want SOME SORT OF CHANGE to the assistance program. But the specific one we are discussing is ONLY NEEDED if a substantial portion of the population earns less than 20K, and we are trying to hint that in fact that specific program 'is necessary.'

You are right that answer D does not *guarantee* that a substantial portion of the population makes less than 20K. However, it very much makes it more likely. if the average is 55K, but the median is well above 85K, it implies a very downwardly-skewed distribution. While it's certainly possible that no one makes above 20K with this distribution (e.g. 50% earns exactly 86K and 50% earns exactly 24K), this answer still makes it **more likely** than it was before that a 'substantial portion' earns less than 20K.

Now, if the median was much *less* than 55K, it would demonstrate even MORE that the changes might be needed. But that is a more obvious answer, and these were meant to be difficult!

Basically, what this author must be assuming is that the average of 55K is the average of a distribution that has only a 'not substantial' portion below 20K. That would a distribution whose median is pretty close to 55K and with a pretty low standard deviation. Anything that indicates that such a distribution is less likely would be a right answer.

(This question was inspired by this official guide question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/educational- ... 22535.html)

my reasoning -
A - Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year - okay but what is their percentage like? if its extremely low percentage then its still find since SAP changes will be necessary only if "substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year"

B many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive - doesn't tell us why to SAP changes are necessary - also, its not like we are thrashing away SAP, we are making changes to it and we don't know how these guys will get affected.

C - the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year - thats fine but again similar reasoning as A

D - WINS - say 101 people total, median is 85k so 50 people having more than 85k and 50 have less than 85k, also the average is 55k which is almost 30k less than median so we can probably interpret that a substantial number/percent of these below median 50 people are earning less than 20k for average to dip so much hence it suggests that YES bring in the changes.

E - the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland - how funding can be raised is irrelevant