Official Explanation
1. It can be inferred from the passage that, if two similar fast-food restaurants in different markets have different staffing levels, then
Difficulty Level: 700
Explanation
This question asks us about something that is somewhat divergent from the example of the fast-food store in the passage, which focuses on a single store before and after a minimum wage hike. But the answer to this question will come from the passage, and the primary point made about fast-food restaurants is that their staffing is optimized. There is a secondary point, which is that "more specific calculations" can be made about how staffing adjustments would impact bottom line. Evaluating the answer choices for consistency with these points, we determine that (A) is out, as it directly contradicts the main idea of the passage.
Choice (B) is in line with the idea that they are optimized, so we'll keep it in for now.
Choice (C) contradicts the passage, which argues that staffing decisions are largely made based on operational need, not salary; therefore, there is no reason to believe (C), so it's out.
(D) sounds somewhat like the "more specific calculation" in the passage, so we can come back to it.
Choice (E) is too strong; the author does allow for the possibility that operations could differ at successful fast-food locations.
That leaves us with choices (B) and (D). Choice (D) makes a stronger claim, because it says that something "more than compensates" for something else. If this statement were true, one of the locations would be better optimized than the other, so it's contrary to the optimization idea--and, regardless, we don't know enough about these restaurants to make that kind of claim. We confirm that (B) expresses the idea that the locations are optimized.
The correct answer is (B).
2. According to the passage, which of the following statements is true of most companies?
Difficulty Level: 750
Explanation
This question asks us to make a general inference, so the author's main point can be our primary guide. We will look for a statement that must be true, according to the passage, since such a statement will be best supported.
Choice (A) is the opposite of the author's thesis, so it's out.
Choice (B) is a distortion of what the passage says. The passage claims that most companies will have optimized their staffing structure, but the invariability of their staffing structures in itself is not required by or helpful to their competitiveness. So (B) is out.
Choice (C) is implied by the passage, which says that a wage hike "will tend to affect a company's bottom line without altering its staffing structure".
(C) is looking good.
(D) makes a claim that is not clearly supported by the passage and probably contradicts the passage; for example, if (D) were true, companies would tend not to be affected by the wage hike and the claim in lines 7-10 would be contradicted, as the bottom line wouldn't be hit. So (D) is out.
Choice (E) also is a distortion of the passage. At the end of the passage, the author admits that there are differences between company practices and industries but makes a claim contrary to the idea that they are "inconsistent"; rather, they are different but consistent according to the "specific calculation" by which they are, generally, optimized. So (E) is out.
The correct answer is (C).
3. Which of the following best describes the relationship of the discussion about fast-food restaurants to the passage as a whole?
Difficulty Level: 600
Explanation
GMAT passages tend to be well-written in the respect that they tend to be free from irrelevant details; most details support the overall idea. In this case, the fast-food restaurant case gives an example that allows the author to describe how companies generally have optimized staffing, and the way in which that staffing is optimized means that they won't necessarily reduce staffing levels if minimum wages are raised. Let's do a pass through these answer choices and see which ones are consistent with that basic idea.
Choice (A) sounds about right, especially since "misconception" can refer to the "myth" described by the author.
(B) is out because the author doesn't describe a contradiction; as we pointed out in our first read, the author doesn't spend a lot of time describing the myth.
(C) is generic but doesn't appear to have an objective flaw. How does it compare to (A)? Looking back, we can see that (A) says that the fast-food example exemplifies a misconception, according to (A). But that's not accurate, because the example is an example of the reality, not the myth. So (A) is out and (C) is in.
(E) is out for reasons similar to (A). And there is no comparison of ideas, so (D) is out.
The correct answer is (C).
4. The primary purpose of the passage is to
Difficulty Level: 650
Explanation
This question asks us something we know: the primary purpose of the passage is to debunk a myth. Only answer choice (E) captures this basic point.
Choices (A), (C) and (D) all describe the author as advocating a solution, but the other doesn't do that. The author never even comes out and says, for example, that the minimum wage should be raised.
Choice (B) is less wrong, but still flawed in that it's not the main point of the passage to describe the impact of a change in rate. Rather, the impact of the change is described in order to debunk the myth.
The correct answer is (E)
Hope it helpsPallabiKundu wrote:
Can anybody explain the answers of the questions mentioned in the passage? Also please mention the difficulty level of the passage