Contrary to the statements of labor leaders, the central economic prob

Question

Contrary to the statements of labor leaders, the central economic problem facing America today is not the distribution of wealth. It is productivity. With the productivity of U.S. industry stagnant, or even declining slightly, the economic pie is no longer growing. Labor leaders, of course, point to what they consider an unfair distribution of the slices of pie to justify their demands for further increases in wages and benefits. And in the past, when the pie was still growing, management could afford to acquiesce. No longer. Until productivity resumes its growth, there can be no justification for further increases in the compensation of workers.

Which of the following statements by a labor leader focuses on the logical weakness in the argument above?

(A) Although the economic pie is no longer growing, the portion of the pie allocated to American workers remains unjustly small.

(B) If management fails to accommodate the demands of workers, labor leaders will be forced to call strikes that will cripple the operation of industry.

(C) Although productivity is stagnant, the U.S. population is growing, so that the absolute size of the economic pie continues to grow as well.

(D) As a labor leader, I can be concerned only with the needs of working people, not with the problems faced by management.

(E) The stagnation of U.S. industry has been caused largely by factors—such as foreign competition—beyond the control of American workers.

AbhayPrasanna · Accepted Answer

Let's summarize the argument:

1. Productivity is the central economic problem.
2. When productivity stops increasing - economic pie stops growing.
3. Until productivity starts to increase, wage increase is not justified.

In the argument, some of the opinions of labor leaders and their argument is also mentioned:

1. Distribution of wealth is the problem.
2. The economic pie is distributed unfairly.

What is a logical FLAW in the first argument?

A. Exactly. If you notice, the argument only talks about the overall size of the economic pie, but irrespective of the total size, the allocation to wages may be too small. The argument does not consider this, and instead focuses on talking about the entire economic pie as a whole. This does not resolve the issue of DISTRIBUTION which is independent of total size, and is simply the proportion of each constituent.

B. This is a threat - not a logical flaw.

C. This refutes the evidence cited in the argument, but remember - this is not the main point of the labor leaders. They are more concerned with distribution - not the total size of the pie.

D. This is apathy - not a logical flaw.

E. This does not justify wage increase according the the argument. The causes for the size of the pie are irrelevant, it is the distribution that needs to be changed.

Pick A.

KarishmaB · Answer

Argument of management:

- Productivity stagnant so economic pie not growing
- Was pie was growing, management could increase wages.
- Now management can't afford

Conclusion: Until productivity resumes its growth, there can be no justification for further increases in the compensation of workers.

We need to look for a weakness.

(A) Although the economic pie is no longer growing, the portion of the pie allocated to American workers remains unjustly small.

It can certainly be the labour leaders' argument. Even if the pie is not growing, the problem is the unjust distribution of current pie. The redistribution of pie is required even if the pie is not expanding.

(B) If management fails to accommodate the demands of workers, labor leaders will be forced to call strikes that will cripple the operation of industry.

This is not correct. It doesn't focus on logical weakness of the given argument. It threatens dire consequences in case demands are not met.

(C) Although productivity is stagnant, the U.S. population is growing, so that the absolute size of the economic pie continues to grow as well.
The argument states that the economic pie is not growing and that has to be taken to be true since it is a premise. Hence, this is not a logical weakness in the argument. Calling another person a liar is not the same as revealing logical weakness in his/her argument.

(D) As a labor leader, I can be concerned only with the needs of working people, not with the problems faced by management.
Again, this is not a logical weakness in the management's argument. This response is same as saying your problem is not my problem.

(E) The stagnation of U.S. industry has been caused largely by factors—such as foreign competition—beyond the control of American workers.
This reveals the reason for the problems being faced by the economy. It doesn't say what the logical flaw of the argument is.

Answer (A)

naish · Answer

Thanks a lot Abhay Prasanna. Superb explanation..

780gmatpossible · Answer

I am not able to figure why A is the correct answer. I marked B

LeopardLiu · Answer

Which of the following statements by a labor leader focuses on the logical weakness in the argument above?

So the statement above is stating that The wealth distribution to the working class is small because of stagnation of productivity. But the fact that the distribution of the pie to the working class is small is not justified. 
(A) Although the economic pie is no longer growing, the portion of the pie allocated to American workers remains unjustly small.  This is the Answer

thakurarun85 · Answer

Is not "dire consequences" a justified reason for increasing wage?

DrHuber · Answer

The statement focusing on the logical weakness in the argument above is:

(A) Although the economic pie is no longer growing, the portion of the pie allocated to American workers remains unjustly small.

This answer choice challenges the argument's assumption that the distribution of wealth is not a central economic problem by pointing out that despite the stagnant or declining productivity, the portion of the economic pie allocated to workers is still unfair. It highlights the logical weakness of assuming that productivity is the sole factor determining the justification for increases in worker compensation.

LUBABAYIMER · Answer

Argument of management:

- Productivity stagnant so economic pie not growing
- Was pie was growing, management could increase wages.
- Now management can't afford

Conclusion: Until productivity resumes its growth, there can be no justification for further increases in the compensation of workers.

We need to look for a weakness.

(A) Although the economic pie is no longer growing, the portion of the pie allocated to American workers remains unjustly small.

It can certainly be the labour leaders' argument. Even if the pie is not growing, the problem is the unjust distribution of current pie. The redistribution of pie is required even if the pie is not expanding.

(B) If management fails to accommodate the demands of workers, labor leaders will be forced to call strikes that will cripple the operation of industry.

This is not correct. It doesn't focus on logical weakness of the given argument. It threatens dire consequences in case demands are not met.

(C) Although productivity is stagnant, the U.S. population is growing, so that the absolute size of the economic pie continues to grow as well.
The argument states that the economic pie is not growing and that has to be taken to be true since it is a premise. Hence, this is not a logical weakness in the argument. Calling another person a liar is not the same as revealing logical weakness in his/her argument.

(D) As a labor leader, I can be concerned only with the needs of working people, not with the problems faced by management.
Again, this is not a logical weakness in the management's argument. This response is same as saying your problem is not my problem.

(E) The stagnation of U.S. industry has been caused largely by factors—such as foreign competition—beyond the control of American workers.
This reveals the reason for the problems being faced by the economy. It doesn't say what the logical flaw of the argument is.

Answer (A)

LUBABAYIMER · Answer

How can I find the quiz questions that come out every day?

Bunuel · Answer

If you mean butler questions, then here they are: Data Sufficiency Butler Problem Solving Butler Critical Reasoning Butler Reading Comprehension Butler Data Insights Butler https://gmatclub.com/forum/download/file.php?id=82429 GMAT-Club-Forum-9f1a9vqi.png

bronaugust · Answer

To solve this question, let us deploy    IMS's four-step technique   .

STEP #1  ->   IDENTIFY THE QUESTION TYPE

The question stem states, 'Which of the following statements by a labor leader focuses on the logical weakness in the argument above?' What we have is a  flaw  question.

Now that the question type is identified, let us proceed to the second step.

STEP #2  ->   DECONSTRUCT THE ARGUMENT

In a flaw question, it is a must to deconstruct the argument. Let us therefore read the argument and figure out the conclusion and the premise.

CONCLUSION:   Until productivity resumes its growth, there can be no justification for further increases in the compensation of workers.
  PREMISE:   With the productivity of U.S. industry stagnant, or even declining slightly, the economic pie is no longer growing.

Now that the argument is deconstructed, let us proceed to the third step.

STEP #3  ->   FRAME A SHADOW ANSWER

To frame a shadow answer, we need to know what the right answer is supposed to do. Clearly, the right answer here must be a statement from a labor leader that focuses on the logical weakness in the argument. From the argument, we know labor leaders believe the central economic problem facing America today is the distribution of wealth. They also consider an unfair distribution of the slices of pie to justify their demands for further increases in wages and benefits.

SHADOW ANSWER:   A response from a labor leader that reiterates that the distribution of wealth could be the central economic problem, simultaneously exposing a flaw in the argument of the author that says there can be no justification for further increases in the compensation of workers until productivity resumes its growth.

STEP #4  ->   ELIMINATE INCORRECT OPTIONS

A) Although the economic pie is no longer growing, the portion of the pie allocated to American workers remains unjustly small. -   MATCHES THE SHADOW ANSWER   -  If the portion of the pie allocated to American workers remains unjustly small despite the fact that the economic pie is no longer growing, it is not necessary for productivity to resume its growth for further increases in the compensation of workers. -    KEEP

(B) If management fails to accommodate the demands of workers, labor leaders will be forced to call strikes that will cripple the operation of industry. -   NOT A MATCH   -  We are to choose an answer option that exposes a flaw; this option actually says what the   consequences of not accommodating   demands of workers would be.  -   ELIMINATE

(C) Although productivity is stagnant, the U.S. population is growing, so that the absolute size of the economic pie continues to grow as well. -   NOT A MATCH   -  Instead of exposing a flaw in the argument, this option misinterprets the meaning of 'economic pie'.  -   ELIMINATE

(D) As a labor leader, I can be concerned only with the needs of working people, not with the problems faced by management. -   NOT A MATCH   -  Not worried about what my concern as a labor leader is.  -   ELIMINATE

(E) The stagnation of U.S. industry has been caused largely by factors—such as foreign competition—beyond the control of American workers. -   NOT A MATCH   -  Instead of exposing a flaw, this option seconds the argument of the author that there has been a stagnation of U.S. industry; furthermore, the author does not mention the factors for the stagnation in the argument.  -   ELIMINATE

Hence, (A) is the correct answer.

Azakura16 · Answer

Background: US industry productivity is stagnant at best, and perhaps declining slightly.
Background: The economic pie is no longer growing due to this productivity stagnation.
Premise: Labor leaders point to what they consider an unfair distribution of the economic pie slices to justify their demands for an increase in compensation.
Premise: In the past, when productivity was still growing, management could afford to acquiesce to the demands of labor leaders, but they can no longer do so unless productivity resumes its previous growth.
Intermediate Conclusion: The central economic problem facing America is not the distribution of wealth, but the stagnant productivity.
Main Conclusion: Until productivity resumes its growth, there can be no justification for further increases in the compensation of workers.

A. This weakens the argument. If the labor leaders think that the pie isn’t fairly split, they’re talking about fractions of a whole. The argument’s conclusion is based on future revenue being used to pay out more money/benefits to workers, which doesn’t address the labor leaders’ concerns. If labor thinks workers are entitled to 2⁄5 of the economic pie, but they’re currently only getting 1⁄5, for the conclusion to be “well, if growth in productivity led to companies making another $100K, we’d give workers another $20K, but we can’t because of stagnation.” That solution still wouldn’t solve the problem from labor’s perspective, because workers would still only be getting 1⁄5 instead of 2⁄5.
B. This doesn’t weaken the argument. It’s talking about potential future outcomes, and we’re not to that point yet.
C. This choice seems to argue with one of the pieces of background info, but as we must always take those as fact, it can’t be the answer. 
D. This is basically like the labor leaders saying “Not my problem, bro. Figure it out.” While that might be a valid response, it doesn't really weaken the argument. 
E. This explains one of pieces of evidence used to form the conclusion, but as we must always take given evidence as true, it doesn’t change the argument to further explain one. 
Best answer: A

Contrary to the statements of labor leaders, the central economic prob

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

Contrary to the statements of labor leaders, the central economic prob

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