Last visit was: 20 Nov 2025, 03:28 It is currently 20 Nov 2025, 03:28
Home
GMAT
Messages
Tests
Schools
Events
Rewards
Chat
My Profile
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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
jimjohn
User avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Last visit: 25 Apr 2014
Posts: 108
Own Kudos:
238
Posts: 108
Kudos: 238
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of 21 Oct 2007, 16:56
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
00:00
Start Timer
Pause Timer
Resume Timer
Show Answer
Hide
Show
History
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

0% (00:00) correct 0% (00:00) wrong based on 1 sessions

History

Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of people who had graduated from college in 1985 found an interesting relationship between income and educational attainement: Participants who had completed doctoral or post-doctoral work earned less, in 2005, than did those people who had only completed master's degrees. On the basis of these findings, a prominent essayist contended that obtaining educatio beyond a master's degree had thereby lowered the participants' 2005 incomes.

Which of the following is an assumption made by the essayist?

A) Those who had only completed doctoral work had a higher average income in 2005 than did those who had also completed post-doctoral work.

B) For each year between 1985 and 2005, the average income of those who had, by 2005, earned a doctorate was lower than that of those who had, by 2005, earned only a master's degree.

C) The 2005 average income of those with no graduate training was lower than that of those who had completed doctoral or post-doctoral work.

D) Working in less lucrative fields such as educatio did not lead people to obtain doctoral or post-doctoral education.

E) Those who had earned master's degrees did not enter the teaching profession.



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
User avatar
saviop
User avatar
Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Last visit: 08 Dec 2007
Posts: 21
Own Kudos:
101
Posts: 21
Kudos: 101
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of 21 Oct 2007, 17:17
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
IMO answer is B.

The premise tells us that :

Masters Salary > Post doctorate salary

However the conclusion is that :

(1) Masters Salary > Doctorate Salary
(2) Masters Salary > Post doctorate salary

(2) is stated in the premise, so assumption is:

Masters Salary > Doctorate Salary

B. correctly points out the assumption.
User avatar
jimjohn
User avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Last visit: 25 Apr 2014
Posts: 108
Own Kudos:
238
Posts: 108
Kudos: 238
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of 21 Oct 2007, 17:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
thx but correct answer given is D. i just dont understand why D is right.
User avatar
JDMBA
User avatar
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Last visit: 03 Jul 2010
Posts: 71
Own Kudos:
43
Posts: 71
Kudos: 43
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of 21 Oct 2007, 17:40
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jimjohn
thx but correct answer given is D. i just dont understand why D is right.
Show more


Where is the question from?
User avatar
jimjohn
User avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Last visit: 25 Apr 2014
Posts: 108
Own Kudos:
238
Posts: 108
Kudos: 238
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of 21 Oct 2007, 18:20
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
manhattan gmat critical reasoning book
User avatar
JDMBA
User avatar
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Last visit: 03 Jul 2010
Posts: 71
Own Kudos:
43
Posts: 71
Kudos: 43
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of 21 Oct 2007, 18:27
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jimjohn
manhattan gmat critical reasoning book
Show more


Throw it away, maybe not the strategies but definetely the wannabe problems. Study from Official LSAT or GMAT questions. They are muc more straight forward.
User avatar
trivikram
User avatar
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
Last visit: 25 May 2018
Posts: 669
Own Kudos:
65
Posts: 669
Kudos: 65
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of 21 Oct 2007, 19:24
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Does D even come under the scope of the question?

If I negate B the conclusion falls apart and I vote for B too...

Not sure if my reasoning is right...Waiting for CRs gurus to chip in
User avatar
jimjohn
User avatar
Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Last visit: 25 Apr 2014
Posts: 108
Own Kudos:
238
Posts: 108
Kudos: 238
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of 21 Oct 2007, 19:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
well heres the explanation in the book for why b is wrong and why d is right. i dont understand it though.

B) The argument does not need to make assumptions about incomes prior to 2005, since its conclusion focuses on 2005 incomes.

D) Correct. The essayist's argument must assume that alternative causal explanations, specifically the reverse cause-effect relationship, cannot account for the low wages of those who had earned doctorates.
User avatar
spider
User avatar
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Last visit: 19 Apr 2009
Posts: 87
Own Kudos:
63
Posts: 87
Kudos: 63
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of 21 Oct 2007, 20:43
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jimjohn
well heres the explanation in the book for why b is wrong and why d is right. i dont understand it though.

B) The argument does not need to make assumptions about incomes prior to 2005, since its conclusion focuses on 2005 incomes.

D) Correct. The essayist's argument must assume that alternative causal explanations, specifically the reverse cause-effect relationship, cannot account for the low wages of those who had earned doctorates.
Show more


This is of the kind - alternative causal relationship.

A --> B so you have to eliminate the possibility of
B-->A

So if getting a higher ed --> caused them to earn lower income

so its not the less lucrative field --> drove them to get higher ed.
User avatar
JDMBA
User avatar
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Last visit: 03 Jul 2010
Posts: 71
Own Kudos:
43
Posts: 71
Kudos: 43
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of 21 Oct 2007, 20:45
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jimjohn
well heres the explanation in the book for why b is wrong and why d is right. i dont understand it though.

B) The argument does not need to make assumptions about incomes prior to 2005, since its conclusion focuses on 2005 incomes.

D) Correct. The essayist's argument must assume that alternative causal explanations, specifically the reverse cause-effect relationship, cannot account for the low wages of those who had earned doctorates.
Show more


D is a horrible answer just like almost every answer MGMAT comes up with. MGMAT's CR questions are horrible because they make you assume way to much to get to an answer. For this particular answer you would have to make a couple of assumptions just to be able to assume that this is an assumption. Then once you made all of the assumptions just to make this assumption you could come up with many other reasons to shoot down all of the assumptions. D has nothing to do with a reverse cause and effect relationship. The answer is wrong and the explanation they give is worse.

Dont stress about this one and do like I said and throw the book away. Go buy "The Next 10 LSAT" book, it will give you 500 legitimate CR questions. While your at it buytPowerScores LR Bible.
User avatar
JDMBA
User avatar
Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Last visit: 03 Jul 2010
Posts: 71
Own Kudos:
43
Posts: 71
Kudos: 43
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of 21 Oct 2007, 20:50
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
JDMBA
jimjohn
well heres the explanation in the book for why b is wrong and why d is right. i dont understand it though.

B) The argument does not need to make assumptions about incomes prior to 2005, since its conclusion focuses on 2005 incomes.

D) Correct. The essayist's argument must assume that alternative causal explanations, specifically the reverse cause-effect relationship, cannot account for the low wages of those who had earned doctorates.

D is a horrible answer just like almost every answer MGMAT comes up with. MGMAT's CR questions are horrible because they make you assume way to much to get to an answer. For this particular answer you would have to make a couple of assumptions just to be able to assume that this is an assumption. Then once you made all of the assumptions just to make this assumption you could come up with many other reasons to shoot down all of the assumptions. D has nothing to do with a reverse cause and effect relationship. The answer is wrong and the explanation they give is worse.

Dont stress about this one and do like I said and throw the book away. Go buy "The Next 10 LSAT" book, it will give you 500 legitimate CR questions. While your at it buytPowerScores LR Bible.
Show more



obtaining education beyond a master's degree in 1985->lowered the participants' 2005 incomes

lower participants' 2005 incomes->obtain education beyond a master's degree in 1985

Its just wrong. What someone did prior to receiving a degree in 1985 has nothing to do with 2005 salaries.

Negate it and it does nothing to the validity of the argument.
User avatar
GK_Gmat
User avatar
Joined: 09 Aug 2006
Last visit: 28 Feb 2009
Posts: 348
Own Kudos:
1,061
Posts: 348
Kudos: 1,061
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of 22 Oct 2007, 00:01
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
jimjohn
A recent study documenting the 2005 incomes of a group of people who had graduated from college in 1985 found an interesting relationship between income and educational attainement: Participants who had completed doctoral or post-doctoral work earned less, in 2005, than did those people who had only completed master's degrees. On the basis of these findings, a prominent essayist contended that obtaining educatio beyond a master's degree had thereby lowered the participants' 2005 incomes.

Which of the following is an assumption made by the essayist?

A) Those who had only completed doctoral work had a higher average income in 2005 than did those who had also completed post-doctoral work.
'
B) For each year between 1985 and 2005, the average income of those who had, by 2005, earned a doctorate was lower than that of those who had, by 2005, earned only a master's degree.

C) The 2005 average income of those with no graduate training was lower than that of those who had completed doctoral or post-doctoral work.

D) Working in less lucrative fields such as educatio did not lead people to obtain doctoral or post-doctoral education.

E) Those who had earned master's degrees did not enter the teaching profession.
Show more


I was contesting b/w B & D but finally picked D because it makes more sense.

Premise: 'Participants who had completed doctoral or post-doctoral work earned less, in 2005, than did those people who had only completed master's degrees.'

Conclusion: Therefore, studying beyond Master's lowered the participants' 2005 incomes.

First thing that flashed across my mind was that the author is assuming that people with a degree higher than an MA, do not chose less lucrative fields. Were this true (that people with higher degrees chose less lucrative fields) the argument would fall apart.

Choice D correctly states that working in fields that pay less led some folks to pursue a higher degree (than MA) in the first place. Therefore, the field, and not the degree is the cause for lesser earnings.



Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block above for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7443 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
231 posts
miag
189 posts