Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 13:11

It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 13:11

Toolkit

Practice Tests

Reading Comprehension (RC)

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

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Nov 20
UCR MBA Impact - Live Q&A with UCR AdCom & Student
07:30 AM PST
-
08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 22
GMAT RC Masterclass
11:00 AM IST
-
01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
Nov 23
Conquer Algebra on the GMAT Focus Edition
11:00 AM IST
-
01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease.
Nov 25
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
10:00 AM EST
-
11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.

Back to Forum

Create Topic

According to many analysts, labor-management relations in the United

1 2

ag153

Joined: 16 Feb 2017

Last visit: 15 May 2022

Posts: 88

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 56

Location: India

Concentration: Finance, Strategy

Schools: XLRI Columbia CBS '24 Harvard '24 ISB '23 Stanford '24

GPA: 3.69

Schools: XLRI Columbia CBS '24 Harvard '24 ISB '23 Stanford '24

Posts: 88

Kudos: 46

17 Apr 2022, 07:36

Kudos

Bookmarks

In Q4, why not D or E? KarishmaB

Tanchat

Joined: 31 Jan 2020

Last visit: 20 Jun 2023

Posts: 222

Own Kudos:

[1]

Given Kudos: 139

Posts: 222

Kudos: 20

[1]

29 May 2022, 04:27

Kudos

Bookmarks

GMATNinja

gmat1393

Hi GMATNinja

Please help in solving question 1 and 2.

Thanks

Question 1

Quote:

1. It can be inferred from the passage that opponents of labor concessions would most likely describe many plant-relocation decisions made by United States companies as
A. capricious
B. self-serving
C. naive
D. impulsive
E. illogical

Plant relocations are first referenced in the first sentence of the third paragraph. Then the second sentence of that paragraph states that "companies make investment decisions to fit their strategic plans and their profit objectives".

Given the context, we can infer that a plant relocation decision would qualify as an investment decision. So, if companies make plant relocation decisions to "fit their strategic plans and their profit objectives", such decisions would certainly be made to serve the interests of those companies. In other words, we could describe such decisions as "self-serving".

More importantly, there is nothing in the passage suggesting that such decisions are (A) capricious (fickle/unpredictable), (C) naive (lacking informed judgment), (D) impulsive, or (E) illogical. By process of elimination, (B) is the best choice for question #1.

Question 2

Quote:

2. It can be inferred from the passage that, until recently, which of the following has been true of United States industry in the twentieth century?

Quote:

A. Unions have consistently participated in major corporate policy decisions.

Paragraph two tells us that participation in major corporate decisions is something that unions MAY win with concession bargaining. This implies that (A) is something that has NOT been true of US industry in the past. Eliminate (A).

Quote:

B. Maintaining adequate quality control in manufacturing processes has been a principal problem.

There is nothing in the passage to support this choice. Quality circles are mentioned as an example of shop floor techniques, but even those are only mentioned in a discussion of possible benefits from concession bargaining. Eliminate (B).

Quote:

C. Union workers have been paid relatively high wages.

Paragraph four starts with, "Wage-related concessions have come under particular attack, since opponents believe that high union wages underlay much of the success of United States industry in this century." From this, we can infer that union workers have had relatively high wages in the past. Hang on to (C).

Quote:

D. Two-tier wage systems have been the norm.

In paragraph four, we have, "If... two-tier wage systems... continue to gain credence..." Thus, two-tier wage systems represent something that is currently gaining credence, not something that has been the norm in the past. Eliminate (D).

Quote:

E. Goods produced have been priced beyond the means of most workers.

Referencing paragraph four again, we are told that, "[opponents of concessions] point out that a long-standing principle, shared by both management and labor, has been that workers should earn wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make." Since this has been a long-standing principle, we can infer that workers have been earning wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make. This contradicts choice (E), so eliminate this one.

(C) is the best answer for question #2.

Snezanelle

What about question 6: why E isn't the correct answer?

(E) is in fact the correct answer to question 6!

GMATNinja

I have questions on Choice D and E in Q2
1) In (D), two-tier wage systems represent something that is currently gaining credence -> Does this not mean "Norm" ?
2) In (E), has been that workers "" should "" earn wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make. "Should" is a word used to "suggest" / "recommend". So, can we imply that the wage is lower than Goods price ?

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Last visit: 19 Nov 2025

Posts: 7,443

Own Kudos:

69,787

[1]

Given Kudos: 2,060

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 Verified score

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 7,443

Kudos: 69,787

[1]

03 Jun 2022, 09:10

Kudos

Bookmarks

Question 2

Tanchat

GMATNinja

Quote:

2. It can be inferred from the passage that, until recently, which of the following has been true of United States industry in the twentieth century?

Quote:

D. Two-tier wage systems have been the norm.

Quote:

E. Goods produced have been priced beyond the means of most workers.

1) Question 2 asks us to infer which answer choice has been true of United States industry in the twentieth century, until recently.

In other words, which answer choice was true BEFORE all of these recent changes?

If two-tier wage systems are currently gaining credence, then they were not the norm earlier in the twentieth century. Are they the norm now? Even that's on shaky ground -- "gaining credence" just means that they are more common than before, and doesn't necessarily imply that they are the now most common wage system.

More importantly, these systems certainly weren't the norm earlier, which is why we can confidently eliminate (D).

2) The word "should" doesn't imply that this recommendation hasn't been met, and that wages have been lower than the price of goods. Think of this example: if you and I both have a long-standing agreement that we should go out for coffee on Saturday mornings, does that mean that we aren't, in fact, going out for coffee each week? Not at all! In fact, if we had such an agreement, it would make more sense that we do meet up.

Similarly, in the passage we learn that both agree by "long-standing principle" that "workers should earn wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make." This implies that wages ARE are generally high enough to buy goods -- both parties involved agree, so what's standing in the way of making that happen?

This implication is strengthened by the comparison with more recent wages, which are going down. Everyone used to agree that wages should be high enough for workers to buy their goods, but now unions are making concessions and allowing wages to be lowered.

(E) is the opposite of what the passage implies.

I hope that helps!

woohoo921

Joined: 04 Jun 2020

Last visit: 17 Mar 2023

Posts: 516

Own Kudos:

142

Given Kudos: 623

Posts: 516

Kudos: 142

11 Sep 2022, 12:20

Kudos

Bookmarks

For question "RC32661-07.01: According to the author, ???Sophisticated proponents??? of concessions do which of the following?"

For B and C, the Official Answer in the Verbal Guide says that "Sophisticated proponents may sometimes do this, but the passage emphasizes their focus on opportunities for labor gains". I realize that you shouldn't totally rely on the Official Answer, but where in the passage does it even say Sophisticated Investors sometimes do this? To confirm, this is not mentioned, and the Official Answer is more so saying that Sophisticated Investors MAY do this.

Thank you

RonTargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep Representative

Joined: 19 Jul 2022

Last visit: 07 Nov 2022

Posts: 430

Own Kudos:

537

[1]

Given Kudos: 1

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Posts: 430

Kudos: 537

[1]

13 Sep 2022, 21:37

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hi woohoo921. One important background principle to make sure you understand accurately here: OG answer explanations for RC and CR are usually well done.

OG answer explanation materials of dubious quality are limited almost entirely to SC.
Even if theoretically there were an equal mandate issued to the OA writers in all three areas, this result would still be very unsurprising.

Simply put, it's just much, much harder to write answer keys—or any other guidance—in SC than in the other verbal subcategories.

The fundamental solution process of a RC or CR problem will consist entirely of consciously processed rational reasoning, whereas in SC—even at the consistently near-ground level of the principles that SC actually tests—the more skilled or experienced someone is, the LESS active rational processing she/he will use in the solution process, and the LESS explicitly aware she/he will be of the (increasingly subconscious) actual processing workflow that occurs in the mind en route to a solution.

The result is that SC OA keys involve a substantial retrospective component. I.e., the original path to the solution has a major component of intuition—which is never conscious or purposely manipulated (this is the entire point of defining 'intuition' as segregated from rational thought processes)—but of course it's not possible to acknowledge intuition in an answer key.
Therefore, writers of answer keys must actually go back, effectively erase those parts of the original cognitive path from history, and [url]https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/retcon-history-and-meaning]retcon[/url] the narrative of solving the problem into something that is 100% rational and explainable in words that themselves are not insanely complicated or otherwise hard to understand.

That is not easy to begin with. Furthermore, if we're totally honest about the actual thought processes involved here, we'll realize that the MOST skilled SC problem solvers will use the greatest amount of intuition, and will depend the LEAST—in numerous cases not at all—on any step-by-step process that could be consciously narrated.

If you don't see why any of this is so, then, consider your experiences of hearing people speaking YOUR first language. Specifically, think for a sec about hearing your fellow native speakers speak your mother tongue, vs. hearing it from the mouths of adult learners who speak some other language natively.
You can almost certainly identify, with 100.000% accuracy, which speakers are first-language users like you and which others are foreign speakers who started learning your language later. Right?
If so, to which extent are you actually using a step-by-step set of articulable rules to make those decisions? Probably NEVER EVER EVER. Unless you have an extensive and very specific background in either academic linguistics (in which your academic focus might be breaking down pronunciation into individual phonemes) or acting/theater (in some area adjacent to coaching foreign actors to speak in a convincingly native-sounding accent—at least for the lines they have to say in the production!), not only would you NOT run through a checklist to determine "Native speaker y/n?", but you likely would not have the first clue how to make such a checklist even if you had a significant incentive to do so.

The analogy here results in an exaggerated understanding, because—unlike your auditory discrimination between native and non-native speakers of your native tongue, nobody's SC solution processes are actually 100 percent subconscious (because FORMAL WRITTEN English—a language with a worldwide total of 0 native speakers—WILL call to some extent on rational processing, even from the world's most skilled and experienced wordsmiths.

Absolutely NONE of the above is true for CR or RC solutions. Although rational argumentation can end up co-opting your intuition once you're well accustomed to using it, it has always been a rational, aware, step-by-step process from day one. Since CR and RC problems have to pass a STRICT evidentiary standard (= "the words have to be there in the passage!"), the written OA format is not at odds with the base nature of the thought processes that undergirds it, as it is in SC.

Very short summary of the above:
You can normally trust OG answer explanations in CR and RC.
The admittedly dodgy quality of OG OA explanations is pretty much for SC only—and, for the entire slate of reasons I've attempted to lay out above, it isn't even the fault of the key writers (or of anyone else who attempts to create SC keys with poor results).
I can't give a corresponding judgment either way about CR/RC explanations in non-official sources (mostly because I haven't seen them in the first place).

RonTargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep Representative

Joined: 19 Jul 2022

Last visit: 07 Nov 2022

Posts: 430

Own Kudos:

537

Given Kudos: 1

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Posts: 430

Kudos: 537

13 Sep 2022, 21:54

Kudos

Bookmarks

In the case of this problem (which is #7 in the current thread topic)...

woohoo921

For question "RC32661-07.01: According to the author, ???Sophisticated proponents??? of concessions do which of the following?"

...the question and its support in the text are, as usual, perfectly rigorous and consummately well done.
There is 1 correct answer; there are 4 incorrect answers. This binary is, as always, a binary: there is absolutely nothing 'less bad' or 'sorta correct' about any of the four incorrect answers.

As always, if you perceive any incorrect answer as a 'trap' answer, the nature of the 'trap' will lie in whatever FALLS SHORT in YOUR understanding and/or approach—NOT in any measure of deception or other less-than-upstanding craftsmanship in the creation of the question itself.

The phrase "Sophisticated proponents" is a great gift here, because it appears exactly once in the entire passage—at the start of ¶2—so that instance is your north star here. Elucidating what's going on there WILL, with absolute certainty, lead to a correct solution to this problem.

So what are "[s]ophisticated proponents" saying?
—> Someone's "observations" are being reframed as pro-labor.

What observations?
—> These appear directly above, at the end of the prior paragraph. They are demands from management, to which labor unions would have to AGREE, i.e., GIVE / SACRIFICE some sort of proverbial ground in a compromise.

Combining these gives the requisite understanding in one go: The "sophisticated proponents" are saying that letting management 'win' on some pieces of the negotiation is GOOD for the workers. (Sounds less than trustworthy, LOL... If this were true, why would there even be labor unions?)

This is exactly what choice B says, so choice B is your winner.

RonTargetTestPrep

Target Test Prep Representative

Joined: 19 Jul 2022

Last visit: 07 Nov 2022

Posts: 430

Own Kudos:

537

Given Kudos: 1

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 1: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

Posts: 430

Kudos: 537

13 Sep 2022, 22:14

Kudos

Bookmarks

woohoo921

For B and C,

Choice B is justified above in detail.

Choice C is unsupported, because there are no "thorough analyses of current economic conditions" anywhere in the parts of the text that specify exactly what the sophisticated smooth guys say.
More generally, "thorough analyses of current economic conditions" is way, way, WAY too broad in scope to be the correct answer, either here or almost certainly on any OTHER passage.

BIG TAKEAWAY:
Statements WRITTEN IN VERY GENERAL LANGUAGE will mean
EITHER
"the entire range/scope of this whole general set of ideas" (which will pretty much NEVER be supportable in a GMAT-length piece)
OR
"ONE idea from anywhere in this entire range of ideas" (which could still be wrong, of course, but will be supportable by a small chunk of evidence).

To distinguish between these two possibilities—which are at opposite poles, with nothing in the wide space between them—just read the words and, as always, think carefully about what is LITERALLY meant be THE WORDS THAT ARE THERE. Do not insinuate or assume anything additional.

E.g.,

"...about research in the biological sciences"
This modifier makes its sentence into an incredibly audacious generalization that isn't true unless it applies broadly to ALL research in ALL biosciences. You can see how this sort of thing is fundamentally unserious as a GMAT answer choice.
Choice C works like this example, on account of "thorough analyses of current economic conditions".

"...about certain research in the biological sciences"
WHOA suddenly we just need one line of research inquiry—or even just one study!—to FULLY support this answer choice.

Please do not try to memorize anything about this stuff, by the way.
The two examples above are so massively different that one refers to the entire penumbra of a super-broad field of science, whereas the other may be talking about as little work product as 1 study from 1 researcher. Differences really don't get any bigger than this! But if you try to transmute this into an A.I.-style memory task, then you're looking at what is objectively a one-word difference (presence/absence of "certain").

wadhwakaran

Joined: 31 Mar 2022

Last visit: 22 Jul 2025

Posts: 262

Own Kudos:

241

Given Kudos: 19

Location: India

Concentration: General Management, International Business

Schools: INSEAD Aug'24 intake Oxford Said'25 Judge '25 Imperial'25 HEC Sep'24 Intake LBS '26 ISB '27

GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V35 Verified score

GPA: 2.8

Products:

Schools: INSEAD Aug'24 intake Oxford Said'25 Judge '25 Imperial'25 HEC Sep'24 Intake LBS '26 ISB '27

GMAT 1: 700 Q50 V35 Verified score

Posts: 262

Kudos: 241

27 Nov 2022, 18:06

Kudos

Bookmarks

GMATNinja AndrewN

In Q-4. I am confused between option C and option E. Kindly help

4. The passage is primarily concerned with the

A. reasons for adversarialism between labor and management

B. importance of cooperative labor-management relations

C. consequences of labor concessions to management

D. effects of foreign competition on the United States economy

E. effects of nonunion competition on union bargaining strategies

my mapping of passage is as follows:

A: Non union Competition
B: Imports
C: labor concession to management

P1: A&B leads to C
P2: Proponents of C
P3 & P4: Critics of C

shanks2020

Joined: 02 Dec 2018

Last visit: 21 Mar 2024

Posts: 239

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 70

Posts: 239

Kudos: 39

19 Feb 2023, 14:15

Kudos

Bookmarks

Sajjad1994

According to many analysts, labor-management relations in the United States are undergoing a fundamental change: traditional adversarialism is giving way to a new cooperative relationship between the two sides and even to concessions from labor. These analysts say the twin shocks of nonunion competition in this country and low-cost, high-quality imports from abroad are forcing unions to look more favorably at a variety of management demands: the need for wage restraint and reduced benefits as well as the abolition of “rigid” work rules, seniority rights, and job classifications.

Sophisticated proponents of these new developments cast their observations in a prolabor light. In return for their concessions, they point out, some unions have bargained for profit sharing, retraining rights, and job¬-security guarantees. Unions can also trade concessions for more say on the shop floor, where techniques such as quality circles and quality-of-work-life programs promise workers greater control over their own jobs. Unions may even win a voice in investment and pricing strategy, plant location, and other major corporate policy decisions previously reserved to management.

Opponents of these concessions from labor argue that such concessions do not save jobs, but either prolong the agony of dying plants or finance the plant relocations that employers had intended anyway. Companies make investment decisions to fit their strategic plans and their profit objectives, opponents point out, and labor costs are usually just a small factor in the equation. Moreover, unrestrained by either loyalty to their work force or political or legislative constraints on their mobility, the companies eventually cut and run, concessions or no concessions.

Wage-related concessions have come under particular attack, since opponents believe that high union wages underlay much of the success of United States industry in this century. They point out that a long-standing principle, shared by both management and labor, has been that workers should earn wages that give them the income they need to buy what they make. Moreover, high wages have given workers the buying power to propel the economy forward. If proposals for pay cuts, two-tier wage systems, and subminimum wages for young workers continue to gain credence, opponents believe the U.S. social structure will move toward that of a less-developed nation: a small group of wealthy investors, a sizable but still minority bloc of elite professionals and highly skilled employees, and a huge mass of marginal workers and unskilled laborers. Further, they argue that if unions willingly engage in concession bargaining on the false grounds that labor costs are the source of a company's problems, unions will find themselves competing with Third World pay levels—a competition they cannot win.

Show Spoiler

RC32661-01.01
1. It can be inferred from the passage that opponents of labor concessions would most likely describe many plant-relocation decisions made by United States companies as

A. capricious

B. self-serving

C. naive

D. impulsive

E. illogical

Show Spoiler

RC32661-02.01
2. It can be inferred from the passage that, until recently, which of the following has been true of United States industry in the twentieth century?

A. Unions have consistently participated in major corporate policy decisions.

B. Maintaining adequate quality control in manufacturing processes has been a principal problem.

C. Union workers have been paid relatively high wages.

D. Two-tier wage systems have been the norm.

E. Goods produced have been priced beyond the means of most workers.

Show Spoiler

RC32661-03.01
3. The passage provides information to answer which of the following questions?

A. What has caused unions to consider wage restraints and reduced benefits?

B. Why do analysts study United States labor-management relations?

C. How do job-security guarantees operate?

D. Are investment and pricing strategies effective in combating imports?

E. Do quality circles improve product performance and value?

Show Spoiler

RC32661-04.01
4. The passage is primarily concerned with the

A. reasons for adversarialism between labor and management

B. importance of cooperative labor-management relations

C. consequences of labor concessions to management

D. effects of foreign competition on the United States economy

E. effects of nonunion competition on union bargaining strategies

Show Spoiler

RC32661-05.01
5. The sentence “If proposals for pay cuts … unskilled laborers” serves primarily to

A. disprove a theory

B. clarify an ambiguity

C. reconcile opposing views

D. present a hypothesis

E. contradict accepted data

Show Spoiler

RC32661-06.01
6. It can be inferred from the passage that opponents of labor concessions believe that if concession bargaining continues, then

A. plants will close instead of relocating

B. young workers will need continued job retraining

C. professional workers will outnumber marginal workers

D. wealthy investors will invest in Third World countries instead of the United States

E. the social structure of the United States will be negatively affected

Show Spoiler

RC32661-07.01
According to the author, “Sophisticated proponents” of concessions do which of the following?

A. Support the traditional adversarialism characteristic of labor-management relations.

B. Emphasize the benefits unions can gain by granting concessions.

C. Focus on thorough analyses of current economic conditions.

D. Present management's reasons for demanding concessions.

E. Explain domestic economic developments in terms of worldwide trends.

MartyTargetTestPrep RonTargetTestPrep

Can you please explain what is implied by the last part(in bold) of the last sentence of the passage?
Further, they argue that if unions willingly engage in concession bargaining on the false grounds that labor costs are the source of a company's problems, unions will find themselves competing with Third World pay levels—a competition they cannot win.

johoptimus

Joined: 02 Jun 2024

Last visit: 25 Aug 2025

Posts: 4

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 3

Posts: 4

Kudos: 1

30 Jun 2024, 17:14

Kudos

Bookmarks

Can someone explain why in Q6 as shanks2020 points out, the last sentence in the essay says "unions will find themselves competing with Third World pay levels - a competition they cannot win."

Why is "E. the social structure of the United States will be negatively affected" more correct than "D. Wealthy investors will invest in Third World countries instead of the US." Is it because D. mentions "wealthy investors" while the passage is talking about companies?

columb2025

Joined: 02 Feb 2024

Last visit: 12 Jun 2025

Posts: 14

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 103

Location: India

Schools: Ross '27 (A) Darden '27 (D) Kenan-Flagler '27 (A) Foster '27 (A) Fuqua '27 (D) Marshall '27 (A) Tepper '27 (D) McDonough '27 (A)

GMAT Focus 1: 685 Q87 V83 DI82 Verified score

GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37 Verified score

GPA: 7.2

Schools: Ross '27 (A) Darden '27 (D) Kenan-Flagler '27 (A) Foster '27 (A) Fuqua '27 (D) Marshall '27 (A) Tepper '27 (D) McDonough '27 (A)

GMAT Focus 1: 685 Q87 V83 DI82 Verified score

GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37 Verified score

Posts: 14

Kudos: 17

18 Jul 2024, 15:29

Kudos

Bookmarks

trulyrohan

For question 6, why is D not the correct answer?

The last line of the passage clearly says that if the concession bargaining continues, then they will have to compete with third world wages- a competition they cannot win. This means that wealthy investors will start invest in third world countries instead of the states

Is there any flaw in my reasoning? Or is E just a better choice? If yes, why?

I had the exact same reasoning, have you found an explanation to this ?

GMATNinja , could you please help find the flaw in this reasoning ? Thank You

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Last visit: 19 Nov 2025

Posts: 7,443

Own Kudos:

69,787

Given Kudos: 2,060

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46 Verified score

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Products:

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V170 Verified score

GRE 2: Q170 V170 Verified score

Posts: 7,443

Kudos: 69,787

07 Aug 2024, 13:52

Kudos

Bookmarks

columb2025

trulyrohan

I had the exact same reasoning, have you found an explanation to this ?

GMATNinja , could you please help find the flaw in this reasoning ? Thank You

The final sentence refers to a "race to the bottom" in which, if certain concessions are made, unions might have to continue lowering pay expectations to avoid losing jobs to Third World workers who are willing to do those jobs for lower wages.

If a company decides to use offshore labor because it's cheaper than domestic labor, that doesn't qualify as INVESTING in the foreign nation. The company is simply paying wages to workers in the foreign nation.

Also, the passage doesn't tell us where the "small group of wealthy investors" would invest their money. Maybe they would invest ONLY in U.S. companies, and then it's those companies who decide to pay workers from Third World countries. In that case, the investors themselves wouldn't be investing in Third World countries.

(D) might be true, but it might not be. So (E) is a better choice.

VerbalBot

Non-Human User

Joined: 01 Oct 2013

Last visit: 04 Jan 2021

Posts: 18,829

Own Kudos:

986

Posts: 18,829

Kudos: 986

04 Oct 2025, 02:41

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

1 2

Moderators:

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

7443 posts

GMATNinjaTwo

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

231 posts

Sajjad1994

GRE Forum Moderator

17304 posts

miag