Concerned about financial well-being of its elderly citizens, the gove

answer is E.

children supplement the income of elderly parents by just enough to provide the parents a comfortable living. So, if the pension amount has increased, the amount of money these elderly people receive from their kids would decrease. So, overall they would still be getting the same money.

I choose E. I almost had to guess on this one but I just had a moment of clarity. As shoonya correctly point out: children only supply enough to provide their parents with a comfortable living...this implies that they will reduce their giving appropriately thereby leaving their parents at the same utility level.

A. They rely entirely on the government pension for their income

======> If they rely entirely on pension then 20% increase will be helpful, even if its a little help.

B. Runagian banks are so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks to cash a pension check

======> Then the cycle should be same.

C. They buy goods whose prices tend to rise especially fast in times of inflation

======> As stated in passage, inflation is negligible.

D. The pension was increased when the number of elderly Runagians below the poverty level reached an all-time high

======> Even if number of people are more everybody is getting the increased amount. As passage says "...paid to all Runagians over 65"

E. In Runagia children typically supplement the income of elderly parents, but only by enough to provide them with a comfortable living

======> CORRECT. This means children have reduced their support and the increase in pension was offset by decrease in support by children. Why children are decreasing the support? See the bold part in E.

My choice is E.
A: Even if they rely entirely on the govenrnment, if the pension has increased by 20%, they should be getting 20% more, so they should be better of.
B: Irrelevant. It clearly says that the pension was received.
C: Irrelevant. It clearly says inflation was negligible
D: So what? 20% increase is a 20% increase.
E: In the beginning they received 10 dollars from Government. Children gave them 5 dollars more to live comfortably. Then Government gave them 2 dollars more. Children now gave them 3 dollars to live comfortably. At the end of the day they still had the same, and therefore were no better off than before.

A. They rely entirely on the government pension for their income
If this is true they should be better off because pension's real value has increased - 20% nominal increase with no inflation - that's 20% increase in real terms

B. Runagian banks are so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks to cash a pension check
Yes, but pension was increased 2 years ago, I don't see how 3 week time lag can be important in this case

C. They buy goods whose prices tend to rise especially fast in times of inflation
Inflation was near to no existent, consumer goods' prices stayed the same

D. The pension was increased when the number of elderly Runagians below the poverty level reached an all-time high
Pension was increased for all of them - eligible people duly received the increase. So why are many of them no better off? No answer here...

E. In Runagia children typically supplement the income of elderly parents, but only by enough to provide them with a comfortable living
I think that's the case: So children were providing some minimum standard of living for their parents but not more then that. When pension was increased it substituted this source: amount of financial help from children was decreased, it was no more needed because increased part of "comfortable living cost" was financed by pension.

In short, pension increase + children's help decrease = same standard of living for elderly

(E)

Hi fozzy,

For the logical completion, you have to first find what to look for in an answer choice. The last sentence says that many elderly people will be no better off financially i.e. their financial situation will more or less remain the same. So, you have to find an answer choice which provides you a reason as to why these elderly people will not be financially better off even after getting 20% extra in their pensions. The answer choice that will tell us something about their financial status will likely be the correct answer choice.

Assumption: A possible assumption could be that that the current financial status of elderly is not so good and even after an additional 20% their status will remain the same.

A. they rely entirely on the government pension for their income

From A we know that they rely entirely on the government pension but we have no information of the financial status to the people receiving the pension. Is the pension sufficient to provide a living? What percentage of the pension are the elderly saving? are the elderly relying on external help?
A answers none of these answers. So, we do not have an idea about the financial condition of the elderly who receive the pension.

B. Runagian banks are so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks to cash a pension check

It can take up to "three weeks" to cash a pension check but the elderly would still receive their pension. So this choice merely states that most of the elderly receive their pension late. No link between the extra 20% and the financial status.

C. they buy goods whose prices tend to rise especially fast in times of inflation

The stimulus says that the inflation in the given period was negligible so the fact that the elderly buy goods whose prices tend to rise fast in times of inflation becomes irrelevant.

D. the pension was increased when the number of elderly Runagians below the poverty level reached an all-time high

When or under what circumstance the pension increase is irrelevant to the conclusion. This choice does nothing to provide us a reason for the financial status of the elderly over the age of 65.

E. in Runagia children typically supplement the income of elderly parents, but only by enough to provide them with a comfortable living

This choice explains the reason why even after getting the extra 20% the financial state of elderly people will still remain the same. If the elderly are already dependent on their children for a "comfortable living" i.e. a fixed amount comes from their children. This means that their children are paying for the balance of the pension they are currently receiving.

Lets say their pension is $100 but for a comfortable living they require $150 so the difference of $50 is being paid by their children. Now, if the elderly get 20% extra i.e. $20, this will make their pension to $120, but they would still have a deficit of $30, which will again be paid by their children. So, effectively the extra 20% has done no good to their financial status.

Here one can also argue that the elderly are just living on their children's income and are not spending their pension at all. So, the increased 20% of pension will make them better off financially. This will be a far fetched assumption, but, even if we make this assumption, (E) would still be the "most logical" completion of the passage.


Hope this helps,

Vercules

But when we have in the stimulus SINCE or BECAUSE is always a strengthen question not a conclusion question. We have inference with that or it should be expected that (most rare)

Hi there,

a "best completes the passage" question stem can be strengthen, weaken or inference, depending on what the statement is asking. I would categorize this as a weaken question because the stimulus indicates that the program was duly implemented but didn't reach the stated goals. A wouldn't make any sense (180), B creates a three week lag but after that everything is running smoothly so it doesn't explain the problem, C is irrelevent given no inflation and D again looks like a strengthener to the plan, not a weakener. E gives a logical alternative as to why the plan isn't working: in essence, it's benefiting the children and not the original elderly recipients.

Hope this helps!
-Ron

Aristotle prep CR Guide 3th edition



MGMAT CR 5th edition




find an agreement...................

Hi Carcass,

For sure and it is extremely clear that it is not a conclusion question. Please don't go by just one word, please read the complete explanation, in the last line there was a typo. Read it as "the most logical completion" instead of "most logical conclusion". In the whole detailed explanation I have explained as to why one choice is a reason or not a reason to for the conclusion to be true. Nowhere I have said that we require a conclusion. The conclusion is "many of them are no better off financially" and we have to find a reason why this conclusion is possible.

The given question is a strengthening question and yes almost always the since/ because ask for a strengthener. However, the logical completion can be made into any CR question type (except boldface).

For example

In order to evaluate the editor's plan one must question that........ --> Evaluate

The government's new policy will not achieve its result because/ since.... ---> Weaken/ Strengthen

The government's new policy will achieve its result because/ since.... ---> Strengthen/ Weaken

Based on the Mayor's proposal it must be true that.... ---> Inference

For the newly implemented trade embargo to achieve its goals it must be true that.... ---> Assumption


I hope it clears your doubt,

Vercules

Hi carcass, questions that ask you to most logically complete an argument can be asking you to defend the preceding argument (strengthen) or deconstruct it (weaken) fairly easily. Since strengthen and weaken are very much two sides of the same coin, it's not a huge difference if you want to use strengthen uniformly for this category. The Veritas Prep strategy involves distilling these two categories to keep your mission clear and avoid picking trap 180 answer choices.

As an example, Question 21 from the Veritas Advanced Verbal Strategy asks:

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

When purchasing a new automobile, consumers are generally wary of car salespeople, a group that bears a reputation for dishonesty. To combat this perception, the CEO of Hoffpeck Motors is running an advertising campaign on television and radio in which he personally guarantees that he has certified each of his salespeople as 100% honest. This strategy may fail to achieve its desired results, however, because ______________________

(A) consumers pay less attention to television and radio advertising campaigns than they did before the widespread use of the internet
(B) consumers favor compact cars over full-size SUVs and trucks, and Hoffpeck Motors has failed to align its vehicle offerings with this changing market
(C) consumers are likely to view the CEO of Hoffpeck Motors as dishonest, himself, in light of his presence in a campaign to sell cars
(D) consumers view prominent businesspeople as more trustworthy than salespeople or mechanics
(E) consumers rank affordability and style ahead of showroom experience as the primary factors in their decisions to purchase new cars

If you view this question as a weaken question, the answer should be C. If you see it as a strengthen question, you'll likely pick answer choice D.

I Ron I agree.

In that sense based on your posted question here we have the word because so we would have a strenghten question BUT this question could be seen also as a weaken question.

Because seeing the overall structure of the stimulus we have to find an answer that confirm (strength) that the overall situation is flaw or weak.

Basically we have to find something like: the owner is a thief, he proposes a fraud and we have to find something that helps us to confirm his weakness. C

Hi carcass,
I agree with your strategy, strengthen and weaken are approached in the same way, so you can think of it as strengthening the doubt, or weakening the conclusion. This type of example is classified as a weaken question at Veritas to avoid tempting traps. Of course logically the answer should be C, but if you're going fast trying to save time you might think D is correct if you're stuck on the idea that you must strengthen the passage/plan.

As Vercules pointed out, Completes the Passage question can be virtually any type of question, so the important part is to find the answer that properly addresses all the issues brought up in the passage (and this is the GMAT so there's always at least one!)

Thanks!
-Ron

Answer is E.

Before pension,

small X (pension)/ no x + bigger y (fund from children) = threshold Comfortable living

After Pension,

Bigger X (pension) + smaller y (fund from children) = threshold Comfortable living

Hi! All,

The argument states that Govt has increased pension amount for elderly people and inflation is negligible, but still elderly people are not better off.

The possible assumption could be:-
1) Their expenses have increased in other areas in which they never used to expense before
2) They are giving the money to support someone in the family
3) Initially, the pension amount was less and they were asking for money from their children. Now, since they receive more money, their children are not providing them money anymore.
a) They rely entirely on the government pension for their income. If they rely entirely on govt then they should be financially sound because the pension has increased.

b) Runagian banks are so inefficient that it can take up to three weeks to cash a pension check. Getting money three weeks later can also make people financially sound

c)They buy goods whose prices tend to rise especially fast in times of inflation. There is negligible inflation

d) The pension was increased when the number of elderly Runagians below the poverty level reached an all-time high. This doesn’t make sense because even if the poverty was all time high the increased pension would have helped raising the economic status as compare to earlier status.

e) In Runagia children typically supplement the income of elderly parents, but only by enough to provide them with a comfortable living. This is a possibility that old people can live comfortably with revised pension and hence children are not sending them money anymore.

Hope it helps

in Runagia children typically supplement the income of elderly parents, but only by enough to provide them with a comfortable living

Here in option E don't we need another assumption that after government pension children have stopped supplemeting the income of elderly parents ?

Option (E) tells us that children supplement the income by just enough to provide a comfortable living. We do not need to assume that they have stopped supplementing. They could still be supplementing but they will provide just enough to be comfortable.

As explained above:


The pension was probably not enough to ensure a comfortable living, say it was $100. If the elders need $200 to live comfortably, children used to provide the extra $100. Now that elderly get $120, children will probably provide only $80 since they help only by enough to provide them a comfortable living. This does resolve our paradox and is the answer. So the financial situation of the elderly stays the same.