Constance: The traditional definition of full employment as a 5 percen

Question

Constance: The traditional definition of full employment as a 5 percent unemployment rate is correct, because at levels below 5 percent, inflation rises.

Brigita: That traditional definition of full employment was developed before the rise of temporary and part-time work and the fall in benefit levels. When people are juggling several part-time jobs with no benefits, or working in a series of temporary assignments, as is now the case, 5 percent unemployment is not full employment.

The dialogue most strongly supports the claim that Constance and Brigita disagree with each other about which one of the following?

(A) what definition of full employment is applicable under contemporary economic conditions
(B) whether it is a good idea, all things considered, to allow the unemployment level to drop below 5 percent
(C) whether a person with a part-time job should count as fully employed
(D) whether the number of part-time and temporary workers has increased since the traditional definition of full employment was developed
(E) whether unemployment levels above 5 percent can cause inflation levels to rise

HoneyLemon · Answer

In the dialogue presented in this stimulus, Constance states that the traditional definition of full employment is an unemployment rate of 5%, and that a rate lower than 5% will result in a rise in inflation.

Brigita claims that the traditional definition of full employment is no longer applicable because it was developed before the rise of temporary and part-time work and the fall in benefit levels. Because some people have to work several part-time jobs or work in a series of temporary assignments, Brigita argues, one cannot consider 5% unemployment to be full employment.

The question stem asks which of the answer choices reflects an issue on which the two speakers would disagree with one another. In prephrasing an answer, we should note that Constance and Brigita seem to disagree about what constitutes full employment. Constance believes that full employment is achieved when the unemployment rate is 5%; Brigita believes that this definition of full employment is outdated.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This choice reflects the prephrased answer above, stating that Constance and Brigita disagree about what definition of full employment is applicable under present economic conditions.

Answer choice (B): The dialogue surrounds the applicability of the traditional definition of full employment, but Constance and Brigita do not get into a policy based argument about what level of unemployment is a “good idea,” so this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C): Since Constance never even mentions the proper categorization for a part time worker, there is no way to conclude that this would be a point of contention between the two speakers.

Answer choice (D): While this answer choice reflects Brigita’s assertion, Constance never weighs in on this issue, and because we cannot presume disagreement based on the information provided in the stimulus, this answer choice must be eliminated.

Answer choice (E): It is known that Constance believes that an unemployment rate below 5% will cause inflation to rise, but no assertion is made by either speaker regarding the effects of a higher unemployment rate on inflation.

Sumi1010 · Answer

Constance:  Traditional definition of full employment i.e. a 5 percent unemployment rate is correct. 
 Brigita:  Because of the  rise of temporary and part-time work  and the fall in benefit levels,  as is now the case , 5 percent unemployment is not full employment.

Prethink:  
Let's deconstruct the argument. 
 So, how does Brigita respond to Constance? 
Brigita agrees with the traditional definition of full employment. But, she doesn't agree that the same definition is valid in current case. 
"rise of temporary and part-time work" implies that temporary and part-time works were there traditionally too. Now, they have risen up.

Now, let's look at the choices -
(A)  what definition  of full employment is applicable under  contemporary  economic conditions.
 Looks correct. The argument is about the definition of the full employment. Brigita agrees to the traditional definition , but she doesn't agree that the same definition is valid in current case. 
(B) whether it is a good idea, all things considered, to allow the unemployment level to drop below 5 percent.
 Constance does not agree for this idea. Brigita  does not mention  anything about it.  
(C) whether a person with a part-time job should count as fully employed
  Temporary and part-time works were there traditionally too. Constance does not say anything about it. 
(D) whether  the number of part-time and temporary workers has increased  since the traditional definition of full employment was developed
 This is the point raised by Brigita only.  
(E) whether unemployment levels  above 5 percent  can cause inflation levels to rise.
 No one advocates for raising the unemployment level above 5 percent.

IMO  A

unraveled · Answer

The question tests the simplicity in approach required to mark the right answer. 
C is trap if someone is overthinking it. As Honeylemon rightly pointed out that Constance never mentions anything about part time workers, one can't be sure enough to mark C if simply thought. That's why it is second most picked answer.
On the other hand, A is too straight forward to choose as correct answer. However, it correctly refers to the core of the argument i.e. what is the definition of full employment then if not what was each of Constance and Brigita gave.

Key words: traditional, now.
Also, see the tense used by each of them - present and past.

achloes · Answer

GMATNinja   nightblade354   AndrewN

I'm trying to dissect Brigita's statement for my own comprehension practice.

Am I right in concluding that according to Brigita, under contemporary economic conditions, temporary and part-time workers are not really "employed". Consequently, they are contributing to the unemployment rate and therefore, this rate would actually be more than 5%?

Thanks in advance!

nightblade354 · Answer

A quick summation is to say that Brigita doesn't agree with the current definition because she believes that it is outdated.

GMATNinja · Answer

Under the traditional definition of "full employment," people are either employed or unemployed -- in other words,  if they have a job they count as employed, and if they don't have a job they count as unemployed . As long as only 5% of people have no job, then we've reached full employment.

Brigita points out a flaw with this definition -- some people DO have a job, but they are underemployed.  These people count as employed , but they are struggling to hold down several jobs with no benefits, or working in a series of temporary assignments.

So, even if only 5% of people have NO job, there are a bunch more people who DO have jobs but are underemployed. That's why Brigita thinks that the traditional definition is outdated -- she thinks that the 5% unemployment rate hides the fact that some "employed" people are actually "underemployed." Basically, we can't congratulate ourselves on "full employment" if that figure includes a bunch of people who are struggling to get by with multiple part-time or temporary jobs.

I hope that helps!

DP448AX · Answer

The dialogue most strongly supports the claim that Constance and Brigita disagree with each other about (A) "what definition of full employment is applicable under contemporary economic conditions." Constance believes that the traditional definition of 5 percent unemployment rate is correct, while Brigita argues that this definition was developed before the rise of temporary and part-time work and does not accurately reflect the current economic situation.

(B) Whether it is a good idea, all things considered, to allow the unemployment level to drop below 5 percent - This option is not mentioned in the dialogue, so there is no evidence of disagreement between Constance and Brigita on this issue.

(C) Whether a person with a part-time job should count as fully employed - This option is also not mentioned in the dialogue, so there is no evidence of disagreement between Constance and Brigita on this issue.

(D) Whether the number of part-time and temporary workers has increased since the traditional definition of full employment was developed - Brigita mentions this in her argument, but this is not the main point of disagreement between Constance and Brigita. The disagreement is about the definition of full employment and whether the traditional definition is still applicable.

(E) Whether unemployment levels above 5 percent can cause inflation levels to rise - This option is not mentioned in the dialogue, so there is no evidence of disagreement between Constance and Brigita on this issue.

egmat · Answer

Understanding Point of Disagreement Questions

The key rule:  BOTH speakers must have an opinion on the topic, and those opinions must CONFLICT.

Let's break down what each speaker actually claims: 
 Constance:  The traditional  5%  definition of full employment  IS correct  (because below  5% , inflation rises).

Brigita:  The traditional  5%  definition  is NOT correct  under today's conditions (because part-time/temp work has changed the landscape).

The Direct Clash: 
- Constance says the old definition  WORKS  today
- Brigita says the old definition  DOESN'T WORK  today

They disagree about  whether the traditional definition applies under contemporary economic conditions .

Why the other answers fail:

(B) "whether it's a good idea to let unemployment drop below  5% " -  Trap!  Constance mentions inflation rises below  5% , but never says whether dropping below  5%  is good or bad overall. No clash.

(C) "whether part-time workers count as fully employed" -  Trap!  Only Brigita raises part-time work. Constance never addresses how to count them. No clash.

(D) "whether part-time/temp work has increased" - They would likely  AGREE  on this. Brigita states it as fact; Constance doesn't dispute it.

(E) "whether unemployment above  5%  causes inflation" - Neither speaker discusses what happens  above   5% . Constance only mentions  below   5% .

Takeaway:   In disagreement questions, always verify that BOTH parties express opposing views on the exact same issue.  If only one person discusses a topic, there's no disagreement to find.

Answer: A

Constance: The traditional definition of full employment as a 5 percen

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Constance: The traditional definition of full employment as a 5 percen

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards