Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 03:46 It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 03:46
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
Back to Forum
Create Topic
   1   2 
705-805 Level|   Strengthen|         
avatar
tt147
avatar
Joined: 23 Apr 2019
Last visit: 29 Jan 2022
Posts: 19
Given Kudos: 44
Posts: 19
Kudos: 0
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 12 Aug 2021, 08:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi VeritasKarishma, GMATNinja,
GMATWhizTeam,
AjiteshArun

Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation. Nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, but those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines. So the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the columnist's argument?

A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees.

D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.

E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.


Please help me to understand how is A an alternate explanation ?
Can't we strengthen the columnist's argument by saying Metro City has higher income per capita because it has low percentage of residents with humanities degrees but they earn higher income.
User avatar
AjiteshArun
User avatar
Major Poster
Joined: 15 Jul 2015
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 5,949
Own Kudos:
5,080
Given Kudos: 732
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V169
Posts: 5,949
Kudos: 5,080
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 12 Aug 2021, 23:49
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
tt147
Please help me to understand how is A an alternate explanation ?
Can't we strengthen the columnist's argument by saying Metro City has higher income per capita because it has low percentage of residents with humanities degrees but they earn higher income.
Show more
Hi tt147,

"Residents with humanities degrees" is a little too long. Let's take engineers and non-engineers (like MBAs). Let's say that generally, non-engineers out-earn engineers.

Metro City: ~ Fewer (actually, smaller percentage of) engineers, more non-engineers. Higher PCI. The reason for "higher PCI" is "fewer engineers". Important: According to the logic of the argument, this means that the reason for "higher PCI" is "more non-engineers".

Now, MC could be just another city somewhere where "non-engineer > engineer" holds. Or it could be a city full of tech startups where only the most highly skilled engineers work (and earn much more than engineers elsewhere). If this is true, then maybe the reason for "higher PCI" is in fact the engineers, and not the non-engineers. This weakens the argument.
User avatar
tinbq
User avatar
Joined: 04 Nov 2016
Last visit: 26 May 2024
Posts: 119
Own Kudos:
24
Given Kudos: 599
Location: Viet Nam
Schools: Cornell '26 (WL)
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V38
GPA: 3.12
Schools: Cornell '26 (WL)
GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V38
Posts: 119
Kudos: 24
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 14 Aug 2021, 09:39
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja


On the other hand, consider this possibility: MC's overall proportion of grads is very low, which is compatible with the information in (B). But somehow, the overall income is still high -- where the heck is the high income coming from? For example:

    Metro City
    Humanities graduates: 5%
    Non-humanities graduates: 5%
    Non-graduates: 90%

    Other Comparable Cities
    Humanities graduates: 20%
    Non-humanities graduates: 20%
    Non-graduates: 60%

The impact of MC having a low proportion of humanities grads would be relatively small. Instead, the finger is now pointed at the non-graduates: they now make up a much larger proportion of the population, so perhaps they are somehow earning a ton of money in MC. Or maybe the high income is driven by the non-humanities grads, who may earn way more money than non-humanities grads in other cities. Either way, if the overall proportion of grads is very low, the author's argument is weakened.

Because (B) can either strengthen or weaken the author's claim, we can eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!
Show more

Hi GMATNinja,

Thank you again for spending time to help me clear my concern.

I see you pointed out two scenarios that are required for choice B to be correct. This still confuses me and leads me back to the initial question about unstated additional assumption for a choice in CR Strengthen Question to be correct. In your first reply to me, I think you would agree that a correct choice may still need additional assumptions. So in this case, let's say your two scenarios are two additional assumptions, Is B then correct? And if yes, why D is preferred over B?

I really appreciate your help and look forward to hearing from you so that I can clear my gap in this.

Thank you so much.
Tin
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,783
 [2]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,783
 [2]
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 01 Sep 2021, 10:46
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
tinbq
GMATNinja


On the other hand, consider this possibility: MC's overall proportion of grads is very low, which is compatible with the information in (B). But somehow, the overall income is still high -- where the heck is the high income coming from? For example:

    Metro City
    Humanities graduates: 5%
    Non-humanities graduates: 5%
    Non-graduates: 90%

    Other Comparable Cities
    Humanities graduates: 20%
    Non-humanities graduates: 20%
    Non-graduates: 60%

The impact of MC having a low proportion of humanities grads would be relatively small. Instead, the finger is now pointed at the non-graduates: they now make up a much larger proportion of the population, so perhaps they are somehow earning a ton of money in MC. Or maybe the high income is driven by the non-humanities grads, who may earn way more money than non-humanities grads in other cities. Either way, if the overall proportion of grads is very low, the author's argument is weakened.

Because (B) can either strengthen or weaken the author's claim, we can eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!

Hi GMATNinja,

Thank you again for spending time to help me clear my concern.

I see you pointed out two scenarios that are required for choice B to be correct. This still confuses me and leads me back to the initial question about unstated additional assumption for a choice in CR Strengthen Question to be correct. In your first reply to me, I think you would agree that a correct choice may still need additional assumptions. So in this case, let's say your two scenarios are two additional assumptions, Is B then correct? And if yes, why D is preferred over B?

I really appreciate your help and look forward to hearing from you so that I can clear my gap in this.

Thank you so much.
Tin
Show more
I'm not sure I fully understand your question, but here are some thoughts on (D) vs. (B):

(D) directly eliminates a possible alternate explanation for the higher per capita income in MC. That means that the author's explanation is more likely to be the correct one. Therefore, (D) strengthens the author's argument.

(B) gives us a bit of information, but you can "cook the books" so that this information either strengthens or weakens the author's argument. So, the information in (B) does NOT directly strengthen the author's argument.

We're not making any assumptions here -- we're just seeing how the information in each answer choice would impact the conclusion in the passage. (D) strengthens that conclusion, while (B) doesn't necessarily do so.

I hope that helps!
avatar
gmatBoy123456
avatar
Current Student
Joined: 02 Jun 2019
Last visit: 05 Oct 2022
Posts: 53
Own Kudos:
10
Given Kudos: 378
Location: India
Schools: Stanford '24 Kellogg '24 Anderson '24 (A$$$) Haas '24 (D) Sloan '24
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V44
GPA: 3.56
Schools: Stanford '24 Kellogg '24 Anderson '24 (A$$$) Haas '24 (D) Sloan '24
GMAT 1: 770 Q50 V44
Posts: 53
Kudos: 10
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 16 Nov 2021, 01:14
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATNinja, VeritasKarishma

Thanks for spending time in addressing the query.
I have a doubt in line with doubt of tinbq :

even if we say (as per option D) : Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.

We are still open to interpret other reasons for why Metro City has the highest Per Capita Income (PCI) such as:
1. The proportion of university degree holders would be high in Metro City.
2. The PCI of non-degree holder could be very high in Metro City compared to other cities.

So even if D is stated, would't it still be a weakener or strengthener based on other unstated assumptions?

I really appreciate your help and look forward to hearing from you so that I can clear my gap in understanding.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,989
 [4]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,989
 [4]
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 16 Nov 2021, 23:08
4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
rohanrony
Hi GMATNinja, VeritasKarishma

Thanks for spending time in addressing the query.
I have a doubt in line with doubt of tinbq :

even if we say (as per option D) : Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.

We are still open to interpret other reasons for why Metro City has the highest Per Capita Income (PCI) such as:
1. The proportion of university degree holders would be high in Metro City.
2. The PCI of non-degree holder could be very high in Metro City compared to other cities.

So even if D is stated, would't it still be a weakener or strengthener based on other unstated assumptions?

I really appreciate your help and look forward to hearing from you so that I can clear my gap in understanding.
Show more

rohanrony

That is not how a strengthener works. An option is a strengthener if taken in isolation keeping everything else the same, it increases the probability that the conclusion is true. It need not establish the conclusion beyond doubt. We need to ignore any additional factors that could alter it if they are not given.

Metro city has fewer humanities degrees and higher income so the conclusion is that higher income is because of fewer humanities degrees. If people with other degrees get paid the same here as do those in other cities, it increases the probability that fewer humanities degrees is the reason for higher income.

Think of it this way: Metro city has higher income. Reasons could be one or more of many:
1. It has fewer humanities degrees and hence, more people with other degrees
2. Its people with other degrees are paid more than such people in other cities
3. Its people with Humanities degrees are paid much more than such people in other cities because of their relative scarcity
4. Its people without degrees get paid higher than such people in other cities
5. It has more people with degrees
etc

We have concluded that No. 1 above is the reason. What helps increase the probability that number 1 is the reason. If we can show that all other reasons are not present, then we can establish that no 1 is the reason. But we don't need to worry about establishing the conclusion. So if we can show that even one of the other reasons is not present then it increases the probability that no 1 is our reason. That is what option (D) does.
User avatar
Gio96
User avatar
Joined: 27 Jan 2021
Last visit: 01 Apr 2025
Posts: 36
Own Kudos:
7
Given Kudos: 56
Posts: 36
Kudos: 7
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 09 Jun 2022, 03:28
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi Experts, I'm not clear with your second scenario in choice B (regarding the GmatNinja's answer)

The passage says that nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates.
Then it also says that MC has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size.

Your assumed second scenario is:

MC
Humanities graduates: 5%
Non-humanities graduates: 5%
Non-graduates: 90%

VS

Other cities
Humanities graduates: 20%
Non-humanities graduates: 20%
Non-graduates: 60%

It seems that this scenario is inconsistent IMHO with the two information provided. We're said that these 90% earn less than the other, so how can we in this scenario have an higher income per capita given the precedent constraint?

Regards.
User avatar
KarishmaB
User avatar
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,267
Own Kudos:
76,989
 [2]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,267
Kudos: 76,989
 [2]
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 09 Jun 2022, 22:12
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Gio96
Hi Experts, I'm not clear with your second scenario in choice B (regarding the GmatNinja's answer)

The passage says that nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates.
Then it also says that MC has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size.

Your assumed second scenario is:

MC
Humanities graduates: 5%
Non-humanities graduates: 5%
Non-graduates: 90%

VS

Other cities
Humanities graduates: 20%
Non-humanities graduates: 20%
Non-graduates: 60%

It seems that this scenario is inconsistent IMHO with the two information provided. We're said that these 90% earn less than the other, so how can we in this scenario have an higher income per capita given the precedent constraint?

Regards.
Show more

Gio96
We are not given that graduates in all cities earn comparable figures and non graduates earn comparable figures. All we know is that graduates earn more than non graduates.
It is possible that MC graduates (compared to graduates of other cities) get paid much more because their universities are elite or their school culture creates hard working adults etc. It is also possible that MC non graduates get paid much more than other cities' non graduates again because of some similar reason.
It is still possible that per capita income in MC is higher than that in other cities.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,783
 [1]
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,783
 [1]
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 18 Jun 2022, 09:47
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Gio96
Hi Experts, I'm not clear with your second scenario in choice B (regarding the GmatNinja's answer)

The passage says that nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates.
Then it also says that MC has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size.

Your assumed second scenario is:

MC
Humanities graduates: 5%
Non-humanities graduates: 5%
Non-graduates: 90%

VS

Other cities
Humanities graduates: 20%
Non-humanities graduates: 20%
Non-graduates: 60%

It seems that this scenario is inconsistent IMHO with the two information provided. We're said that these 90% earn less than the other, so how can we in this scenario have an higher income per capita given the precedent constraint?

Regards.
Show more
(Here's a link to the original post, for reference.)

Here's a key nugget from the passage:
Quote:
Nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates.
Show more
"Generally" is the key word here. MC could be an exception to the general trend. Maybe it's home to all the tech billionaires who dropped out of college?

(B) does in fact rule out one possible explanation for the data, but it doesn't help convince us that the low percentage of residents with humanities degrees is the driving factor.
avatar
untilthen
avatar
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Last visit: 12 Nov 2025
Posts: 1
Given Kudos: 227
Posts: 1
Kudos: 0
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 07 Jul 2022, 13:16
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Hi GMATNinja,

The argument is concluding that Metro City has higher per capita income because low percentage of residents graduated in humanities. And given other facts - graduates earn more than non-graduates and humanities graduates earns less than non-humanities graduates, is the following not an assumption in this argument?

Proportion of graduates in the population of Metro City is same/comparable to that of other similar cities. Or, in Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

The argument will make more sense if what's given in choice E is known.

Thank you!
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,783
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,783
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 05 Sep 2022, 10:06
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
untilthen
Hi GMATNinja,

The argument is concluding that Metro City has higher per capita income because low percentage of residents graduated in humanities. And given other facts - graduates earn more than non-graduates and humanities graduates earns less than non-humanities graduates, is the following not an assumption in this argument?

Proportion of graduates in the population of Metro City is same/comparable to that of other similar cities. Or, in Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

The argument will make more sense if what's given in choice E is known.

Thank you!
Show more
The first thing to keep in mind is that the question is not asking for a strengthener, not an assumption. It also might be worthwhile to check out this post where we talk about (E) in greater detail, but the idea is that it doesn't add any information that makes us think that the low percentage of residents with humanities degrees is the reason for the higher than average income per capita.

Sure, maybe a lower proportion of graduates have humanities degrees than usual, but that's consistent with what the argument has already told us. And there could still be other factors driving the income per capita in MC, such as higher than average income for non-humanities degrees or higher than average income for non-graduates. It doesn't give us any additional reason to believe the low percentage of residents with humanities degrees is behind the high income. So, we can eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!
User avatar
nikitathegreat
User avatar
Joined: 16 Dec 2021
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 201
Own Kudos:
22
Given Kudos: 110
Location: India
Schools: ISB '23 LBS '24 NTU NUS Said '23
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V31
Products:
My Reviews
Schools: ISB '23 LBS '24 NTU NUS Said '23
GMAT 1: 630 Q45 V31
Posts: 201
Kudos: 22
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 12 Mar 2024, 10:19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja

untilthen
Hi GMATNinja,

The argument is concluding that Metro City has higher per capita income because low percentage of residents graduated in humanities. And given other facts - graduates earn more than non-graduates and humanities graduates earns less than non-humanities graduates, is the following not an assumption in this argument?

Proportion of graduates in the population of Metro City is same/comparable to that of other similar cities. Or, in Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

The argument will make more sense if what's given in choice E is known.

Thank you!
The first thing to keep in mind is that the question is not asking for a strengthener, not an assumption. It also might be worthwhile to check out this post where we talk about (E) in greater detail, but the idea is that it doesn't add any information that makes us think that the low percentage of residents with humanities degrees is the reason for the higher than average income per capita.

Sure, maybe a lower proportion of graduates have humanities degrees than usual, but that's consistent with what the argument has already told us. And there could still be other factors driving the income per capita in MC, such as higher than average income for non-humanities degrees or higher than average income for non-graduates. It doesn't give us any additional reason to believe the low percentage of residents with humanities degrees is behind the high income. So, we can eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!
Show more
­I dont understand how low percentage of humanities graduates results in higher income per capita? I somehow inferred that the other grads (non humanities people) would have higher income, resulting in higher income per capita? DO we somehow imply that humanities degree earned more and with fewer people, our per capital income was higher? Not able to understand how one segment of the population (low population) increase the income?
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,783
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,783
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 26 Mar 2024, 08:47
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
nikitathegreat

GMATNinja

untilthen
Hi GMATNinja,

The argument is concluding that Metro City has higher per capita income because low percentage of residents graduated in humanities. And given other facts - graduates earn more than non-graduates and humanities graduates earns less than non-humanities graduates, is the following not an assumption in this argument?

Proportion of graduates in the population of Metro City is same/comparable to that of other similar cities. Or, in Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

The argument will make more sense if what's given in choice E is known.

Thank you!
The first thing to keep in mind is that the question is not asking for a strengthener, not an assumption. It also might be worthwhile to check out this post where we talk about (E) in greater detail, but the idea is that it doesn't add any information that makes us think that the low percentage of residents with humanities degrees is the reason for the higher than average income per capita.

Sure, maybe a lower proportion of graduates have humanities degrees than usual, but that's consistent with what the argument has already told us. And there could still be other factors driving the income per capita in MC, such as higher than average income for non-humanities degrees or higher than average income for non-graduates. It doesn't give us any additional reason to believe the low percentage of residents with humanities degrees is behind the high income. So, we can eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!
­I dont understand how low percentage of humanities graduates results in higher income per capita? I somehow inferred that the other grads (non humanities people) would have higher income, resulting in higher income per capita? DO we somehow imply that humanities degree earned more and with fewer people, our per capital income was higher? Not able to understand how one segment of the population (low population) increase the income?
Show more
If the segment of the population in question is dragging the average income down, then reducing the population of that segment will have the opposite effect -- that is, it will raise the average income.

Let's consider a simplified example: imagine that there are 10 large dogs in a room. Five of them weigh 100 pounds, and five of them weigh 200 pounds. (In my world, dogs have hearty appetites. :-P) So the average weight of the dogs is 150 pounds.

Now, imagine that we reduce the population of the smaller dogs. If we remove, say, four of the 100-pound dogs, the average weight for the remaining group will be much higher than before -- 183.3 pounds. 

The same would thing would happen if the number of lower-income residents were reduced. From the passage, we know that humanities graduates earn less than non-humanities graduates. So, humanities graduates drag the average salary among university graduates down. The author argues that the average salary in Metro City is high mainly because there are so few humanities graduates.

I hope that helps!­
User avatar
Kavicogsci
User avatar
Joined: 13 Jul 2024
Last visit: 09 Feb 2025
Posts: 167
Own Kudos:
91
Given Kudos: 154
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V40
GMAT 1: 710 Q48 V40
Posts: 167
Kudos: 91
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 31 Dec 2024, 01:55
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Analysis:

While reading the argument be SUPER ALERT of possible variables as you read every line
- Lower % of - All residents with humanities degree compared with?? City of similar size (mostly population)
I am thinking why is this info given but ok lets continue reading

Generally speaking, in nation
University Graduates earn > Non university Graduates
Humanities are University graduates too, so I am hoping they will be making more than non-university graduates. But it is an assumption/Inference....Lets hold onto it(1)

University Graduates other than Humanities earn> University Graduates with Humanities degree earn
I hope the two comparisons are crystal clear

Oh, I can only preempt that the initial statistic of metros have lower % of residents with Humanities could lead to metro's earnings. Lets wait and watch.
TADA correct!

Metro city has higher income per capita = Total income/Total popln than any city with similar size
So we have taken out the population variable in comparison and we can be sure that higher per capita is due to high earnings of residents of city.
Now why could that happen?
1. Most popln in metro is University Graduate vs other cities have non university graduates {Comparing Proportion}
2. Most popln with Humanities degree earn less vs other cities humanities degree holder have higher income (keeping all variables constant) {Comparing Earnings}
3. Most popln with University degree are top 1% earners vs other cities who would have avg earners with university degree {Comparing Earnings}
etc

Anyway, continue reading
Cause-effect argument!
Main reason = main cause of metro city high income per capita is because of low % of humanities degree
If I say there are A group earners and B group earners. B group earners earn very less than A group earners. Now the number of B group earners is also v less than A group earners so my total earnings and avg earnings will be close to A grp earners.
So it seems a good argument - but don't forget the other causes that could be playing a role. So our strengthener should help focus on why this cause maybe the right one.

A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.
This skews up my effect where I was going for an indirect correlation that Low % of Humanities degree holder - High income. This is telling me wait wait the reason of high per capita income is because the humanities degree holder in metro are for example top 1% earners. So supporting wrong cause for same conclusion.

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.
This skews up my effect because this is telling me wait wait the reason of high per capita income is because the university degree holders despite being less in proportion in metro are let's say top 1% earners overall / Non degree holders earn more here compared to non degree earners nationwide. So supporting wrong cause for same conclusion.

C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees.
Not sure what new info this is adding - in passage we were given all university graduates earn> non-degree earn here we have just added another layer of info that university graduates without humanities earn>non-degree holders


D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.
Interesting!
The non humanities degree holder in metro have per capita income of non humanities degree holders<= The non humanities degree holder in other cities have same per capita income of non humanities degree holders.
So we have one less reason to believe that it could be the non humanities degree holder that could be skewing the data. Hence a defender strengthener. Keep!


E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.
So now they have sneakily changed the denominator - in first sentence we were give humanities/total residents is less - this is telling humanities as proportion of university graduates is less. No info on number of university grads, their income levels etc
Again how does it help connect the per capita info without any other info in place?

gmatt1476
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation. Nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, but those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines. So the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the columnist's argument?

A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees.

D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.

E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.


CR05941.01
Show more
User avatar
siddharth_
User avatar
Joined: 17 Oct 2023
Last visit: 28 Oct 2025
Posts: 64
Own Kudos:
22
Given Kudos: 131
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q85 V85 DI80
GPA: 8.6
GMAT Focus 1: 675 Q85 V85 DI80
Posts: 64
Kudos: 22
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 14 May 2025, 02:35
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
I approached this as follows-
GMATNinja KarishmaB can you kindly validate the thought process?

Population is divided into three parts in increasing order of income-
1. No university. (NU)
2. Humanities. (H)
3. Other courses. (OC)

Income per capita in Metro city (M) or other comparable cities (CC) can differ because of difference in two factors -
1. Percentage split of population.
2. Average income of each group.

The conclusion notes it is because of lower population percentage of humanities group. So I should look for a choice that says it was not because of any other changes in the two cities, eg -
1. No major changes in the split of NU or OC.
2. No major changes in the incomes of respective groups of each city.

I will eliminate choices that highlight some change like above.

A - opposite. Weakens.
B- highlights a change in population split. Provides some other reason. Eliminate.
C - sort of premise restatement
D - yes, says no other change
E - highlights another change - higher proportion of OC. Provides some other reason. Eliminate.
User avatar
GMATNinja
User avatar
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 7,445
Own Kudos:
69,783
Given Kudos: 2,060
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Products:
GMAT Club Tests Forum Quiz
Expert
Expert reply
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
GRE 2: Q170 V170
Posts: 7,445
Kudos: 69,783
Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit 27 May 2025, 09:37
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
siddharth_
I approached this as follows-

GMATNinja KarishmaB can you kindly validate the thought process?

Population is divided into three parts in increasing order of income-

No university. (NU)

Humanities. (H)

Other courses. (OC)

Income per capita in Metro city (M) or other comparable cities (CC) can differ because of difference in two factors -

Percentage split of population.

Average income of each group.

The conclusion notes it is because of lower population percentage of humanities group. So I should look for a choice that says it was not because of any other changes in the two cities, eg -

No major changes in the split of NU or OC.

No major changes in the incomes of respective groups of each city.

I will eliminate choices that highlight some change like above.

A - opposite. Weakens.

B- highlights a change in population split. Provides some other reason. Eliminate.

C - sort of premise restatement

D - yes, says no other change

E - highlights another change - higher proportion of OC. Provides some other reason. Eliminate.
Show more
Looks good, though the reasons for eliminating (B) and (E) aren't quite that simple. Read through our posts from earlier in the thread, and let us know if you still have questions!
   1   2 
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
7445 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
234 posts
miag
188 posts