The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long

Question

The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a drop in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.

(B) Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.

(C) The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.

(D) The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.

(E) The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

This passage is hard to follow, so let's pick it apart, starting with the conclusion: "Updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased." Now let's think about how the author arrived at that conclusion.

"The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia." - So we have people assembling televisions in these two places, and the assemblers in Borodia have, for a long time, earned more money per hour doing so. 
 Three years ago, Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions. That means that Borodia can import televisions from Vernland without paying any tariffs (taxes on imports). 
 Ever since the tariffs were eliminated, the number of total televisions sold each year in Borodia has not changed. In other words, removing the tariffs did not cause an INCREASE in the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia. 
 Ever since the tariffs were eliminated, the number of television ASSEMBLERS in Borodia has decreased.

The author sees a supply and demand problem. The number of televisions demanded in Borodia (i.e. the number sold annually) has not changed. However, the number of assemblers has decreased. According to the author, if the number of assemblers decreases, then the SUPPLY of televisions produced in Borodia would also decrease. Thus, Borodia would have to get televisions from somewhere else (i.e. Vernland) to meet the unchanging demand. Thus, the author concludes that Borodia has probably started to import more televisions from Vernland.

Is this logic sound? If the number of assemblers in Borodia decreases, does the supply of televisions produced in Borodia necessarily decrease? Which of the following is an assumption on which the author's argument depends?

The problem with (A) is that we don't know the rates at which Vernlandian assemblers and Borodian assemblers can assemble televisions. What if Vernlandians assemble televisions three times as quickly as Borodians? In that case, we would only need, for example, 100 Vernlandians to replace the output of 300 Borodians. Furthermore, what if Vernlandia already has an excess supply of televisions available for sale? In that case, Vernland would not need to significantly ramp up production in order to meet the demand from Borodia. The author's argument does not rely on this assumption, so eliminate (A).

The author's argument rests on the idea that there is excess television demand in Borodia. If Vernlandian televisions had the SAME features as Borodian televisions, then surely Borodia would be willing to import the Vernlandian televisions to meet that demand. If Vernlandian televisions did NOT have the same features as the ones made in Borodia, that might weaken the author's argument. However, as is, choice (B) is not a required assumption.

The author's argument is based on the idea that Borodia's television supply has decreased because the number of Borodian assemblers has decreased. But what if the Borodian assemblers have simply become more efficient? What if there are new methods or technologies that allow Borodian assemblers to make televisions twice as quickly as they did three years ago? In that case, Borodia would need half as many assemblers to meet the existing demand.

In order for the author's supply-demand argument to hold, we have to assume that the productivity of Borodian assemblers has not significantly improved. Otherwise, the supply of televisions could remain the same despite a decrease in the number of assemblers. Thus, (C) is a required assumption.

As described for choice (A), it is possible that Vernland has an excess supply of televisions that could be sold to Borodia. Alternatively, Vernland could simply decide to sell a higher proportion of the televisions it makes to Borodia and keep a smaller proportion in Vernland. Thus, Vernland could export more televisions to Borodia without significantly increasing the number of televisions it assembles annually. Thus, (D) is not a  required  assumption and can be eliminated.

The author's argument has nothing to do with wages. Sure, you could speculate that if wages don't increase in Vernland then Vernlandian assemblers  might  move to Borodia, decreasing the need to import televisions from Vernland, but there is nothing in the passage to suggest that this will happen. Even if wages do not change, Vernlandian assemblers might go on making televisions and exporting them to Borodia. The author's reasoning does not rely on this assumption, so eliminate (E).

Choice (C) is the best answer.

gamjatang · Answer

The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a droip in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased. 

I believe this is clearly (C).

It is true that there was a drop in the number of television assemblers in Borodia.

But the total number of television sets assembled in Borodia does not need to be decreased, if the average number of hours taken to assemble one television set has significantly decreased.

Like this:

Before
 - Number of TV assemblers =   10  
 - Average hour needed per one TV set =   2  
 - Number of TV sets assembled per day =  120 

After
 - Number of TV assemblers =   5  
 - Average hour needed per one TV set =   1  
 - Number of TV sets assembled per day =  120 

Therefore, if the average hour needed to assemble one TV set is decreased, Borodia does not need to import more TV sets.



However, (D) doesn't have to be assumed since there also is a possibility that Vernland reduced the local sales of the TV sets and increased export, or that the demand for TV sets in Vernland decreased.

michalky · Answer

C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.

This choice is the correct one - the author is assuming the time it takes to assembly one TV in Borodian has not changed. For if it had decreased, the whole argument would collaps > there would be less workers producing the same number of TVsets. 
The argument doesn't mention that number of TVs decreased.

priyankurml · Answer

Facts  are: 
1) Wage is lower in Vernland than Borodia 
2) NO tax on imported TV from Vernland
3) Number of assemblers has decreased @ Borodia
 Outcome  is: STILL TV sales at Borodia are not hampered.

Conclusion : Only way it can happen if import has increased significantly.

Assumption:  But what if average number to assemble a TV has decreased drastically? So less assembler could still assemble same number of TV.

A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
 – Not required essentially  
B. Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.
 – Out of scope 
C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.
 - True 
D. The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.
 -- Same kind of statement like A’s. 
E. The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years
 -- Future aspect is OOS

IanStewart · Answer

The questions in the Official Guide proceed generally from easy to hard, so in general you can use that as a rough guideline. This question is near the end of the CR section, so it is among the more difficult ones in the book (and therefore representative of the more difficult CR questions that appear on the real test). It's certainly a denser passage than is typical, and I think it's much more difficult than in most CR questions, upon reading the stem alone, to know what answer to look for, so I would expect most people to find this question challenging. Still, the underlying logic has parallels with that in many other questions, so I think it's a worthwhile problem to study.

_________________

now teaching gmat focus

ianstewartgmat.com

Signature Read More

GyanOne · Answer

If the number of televisions sold in Borodia has not changed, and the number television assemblers in Borodia has gone down, this can mean only two things.

1. The reduced number of assemblers in Borodia means lesser TVs produced in Borodia. The difference is then made up by importing TVs from Vernland
2. The reduced number of assemblers in Borodia are more productive now than they used to be - and they are able to produce the same number of televisions as earlier.

1 is stated explicitly in the stimulus. Lets look at the options to see if we can find 2, or a better assumption, somewhere.

(A): This is not an assumption. It is possible that the assemblers in Vernland are more productive, and for example one assembler in Vernland can produce twice the number of TVs produced by one assembler in Borodia. In that case even if the TVs are being imported from Vernland, the decrease in assemblers in Borodia need not confirm exactly to the increase in the number of assemblers in Vernland
(B): TV features are irrelevant to the argument here. 
(C): This is exactly assumption 2 that we mapped out earlier. Correct. 
(D): This does not help to reach the conclusion of the stimulus. For instance, it is possible that the local market in Vernland expanded in this period, and in that case the additional TVs would be needed to just satisfy local demand, not import demand for Borodia. 
(E): The difference in wage rates is not a factor here.

C is therefore correct.

pqhai · Answer

Hi Ratinarace:

If you want to increase your critical thinking speed, I highly recommend you read "Critical Reasoning - Bible".
For assumption questions, we have 2 types: supporter assumption, and defender assumption. I won't talk in detail here. This question is asking you about supporter assumption.

The question wants you to explain the link: why a drop in the number of television assemblers in Borodia leads to an increase of TV import from Vernland. Clearly,  there's a gap  between "number of assemblers" and "TV import". The logic is: the number of Borodia TV assemblers decreases --> the number of TVs assembled in Borodia decreases --> Borodia has to import more TV from Vernland.

Name Q = the number of TV assemblers in Borodia
Name T = average hour/day to assemble a TV
Name K = the number of working hours/day for each assembler = constant.
Name P = total TV assembled/day = (K/T) x Q

The stimulus says Q decreased --> P only decrease if T stays the same of just decreases a little bit. Otherwise, if T decreases significantly --> P maybe increase --> so logic would be failed.

For instance:

Q= 100 people; T= 10 hours/TV; K = 10 hours --> the number of TV per a assembler per day = K/T = 10/10 = 1 TV/day --> total TV assembled/day = (K/T)xQ = 1 x 100 = 100 TVs

if Q changes to 50 people, T also decreases to 2.5 hours; K = 10 --> each person will assemble 4 TVs/day --> Total TV = 4 x 50 = 200 TVs --> P increases --> the logic is failed

ForzaJuve · Answer

Answer is (C). I'll try to explain via a hypothetical dialogue.

First identify the conclusion, which in my own words, translates to

"Borodia must have imported more TVs"

A skeptic would then ask, "what makes you come to that conclusion?"

I reply -- "well, because of a few reasons, which are stated in my premises":

1) Borodia sold the same # of TVs for the past 3 years
2) Borodia lost some of its own TV assemblers

1+2 Combined) Borodia sold the same number of TVs while employing fewer assemblers.

1+2+Conclusion) Borodia sold the same number of TVs while employing fewer assemblers. Therefore, they must have imported more TVs

Skeptic, still skeptical, then asks: "well...what if somehow, just SOMEHOW, there was another way Borodia supplied its TVs while employing fewer employees?"

I then reply, "well...I  assume  there wasn't any other way."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now look at choice (C): The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.

This is telling me the few remaining TV assemblers in Borodia might have become more efficient and produced more TVs per hour. 
Tying it back to my hypothetical dialogue:

"Like I said, I  assume there is no other way  Borodia produced the same # of TVs as last year, including this scenario"

Therefore, answer is (C).

egmat · Answer

Hi, The passage in the question is one of those arguments, which, at e-GMAT, we classify as QPA arguments or Quantitative Predictive Arguments. We had written an article on the same some time back. It might help. a-framework-to-prethink-in-quantitative-predictive-arguments-146436.html Thanks, Chiranjeev

pqhai · Answer

This is a rate problem if you're interested in Quant.

Let analyze an example:

Before: 
Barodia has  100 workers . 
It took 4 hours per worker to assembly 1 TV. 
Each worker works 8 hour a day 
==> 100 worker will assemble (8/4)*100 =  200 TV/day.

After:  
the number of workers decreases to  80 workers 
it takes 2 hours per worker to assembly 1 TV. 
Each worker still works 8 hour a day 
==> 80 workers will assemble (8/2)*80 =  240 TV/day

You see even the number of workers decreases, but the amount of time to assemble a TV also decreases significantly, the total TV assembled may increase.

Hope it helps.

ssbisht · Answer

Hi Umesh,
No need to look at the numbers in detail here.
Just break down the information so that it becomes easier for you to relate the facts with each other.

Borodia will be referred as B and Vernlandian as V
For Telivision assemblers:
1. hourly wage in V << hourly wage in B
2. Borodia dropped all tariffs on V televisions three years ago.

3. No of televisions sold in B =constant

Which can be written as
In Borodia :
 3(a) No of TV (assembled in B) + No of TV (assembled in V) = No Change

4. number of television assemblers in B went down.

Now point 4 sates that number of television assemblers in B went down.
This will imply that if productivity of assemblers in B has not gone up then number of telivision assembled at B will go down. 
But for equaltion 3(a) to hold means the import from V will have to go up.
So productiivty of assemblers in B going up is the assumption.
More the proudcitivity lesser will be the time taken to assemble the TV.
Hence Choice C is the correct answer.

umeshpatil · Answer

+1 kudo Ssbisht,
I tried to understood your analysis. I only couldn't get the red marked line of yours(above).

Can you read what I understood? I will go by the argument serially.

1. hourly wage(V)<< hourly wage(B)
2. Barodia dropped all tariff on V TV, 3 years ago
 It means V can export TVs to B in much higher volume. Barodia started importing TVs from V in higher amount after effect of no-tariff rule.
3. No of television sold (B) =constant.
 Any TV sold in B can be   OR   assuming there are no other countries exporting TVs to B.
 constant= TV assembled (B) + TV assembled in (V)
 C= B + V
4. Television assembled in B has gone down, it 
 In eq(3) if, B has gone down, V must have increased as C is fixed value.
 i.e. knowing, Assemblers in B has gone down, I can say the number of TVs exported from V should have gone up.

Questions:
1. I am unable to conclude that productivity of B has gone down. ( which is assumption in choice C)
2. Does statement(1) help anywhere for the conclusion? or its just shell game to distract?

ssbisht · Answer

Hi Umesh,
Following are my comments on your argument

1. hourly wage(V)<< hourly wage(B)

2. Barodia dropped all tariff on V TV, 3 years ago

It means V can export TVs to B in much higher volume. Barodia started importing TVs from V in higher amount after effect of no-tariff rule.
 Don’t assume this right away else you will make a different conclusion from the argument.

3. No of television sold (B) =constant.
Any TV sold in B can be   OR   assuming there are no other countries exporting TVs to B.
constant= TV assembled (B) + TV assembled in (V)
C= B + V
 You are correct here.

4. Television assembled in B has gone down.- This is the conclusion we need to strengthen 
In eq(3) if, B has gone down, V must have increased as C is fixed value.
i.e. knowing, Assemblers in B has gone down, I can say the number of TVs exported from V should have gone up.

Questions:
1. I am unable to conclude that productivity of B has gone down. (which is assumption in choice C)
 I think you misread choice C here .It says the number of hours to assemble television has not gone down significantly which implies that Productivity has not gone up significantly.
Remember that lesser the hours required to assemble a television the more the productivity.
So choice C is saying that Productivity of B has not gone up significantly. If productivity has gone up then B will produce more TV and will not require import from V.

2. Does statement (1) help anywhere for the conclusion? Or its just shell game to distract?
 Yes this and statement 2 is not required. Remember don’t assume anything like you did for statement 2 as that will take on an alternate understanding of argument .

KarishmaB · Answer

The question seems to be giving a lot of pain but actually, it is absolutely fine. As expected, OG does not falter here too. Forget everything you have read about this question before and look at it with fresh eyes: Premises: - The hourly wage of assemblers in V is much lower than that in B. - 3 yrs ago, B dropped all tariffs on TVs imported from V. - Number of TVs sold annually in B is same. - But number of assemblers in B has decreased. Conclusion: Trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions B imports annually from V has increased. The conclusion might look logical but is full of assumptions. Why logical? Wages in V are lower (so seems like TVs are cheaper in V). B dropped all tariffs on import (so no artificial inflation of TV prices ofV) . Number of TVs sold in B has not dropped but number of assemblers in B has dropped (looks like fewer TVs are getting made in B). An onlooker might conclude that B is importing more TVs from V because they are cheaper. But here are some assumptions: - The cost of a TV in V is lower because assembler's wage is lower. What if the raw material cost is higher in V? Or other costs are higher? The cost of a V TV could actually be higher than the cost of a B TV. - Fewer TVs are getting made in B. Assemblers in B have not become more productive. What if fewer assemblers are needed because they can complete assembly process much faster? The number of TVs sold is the same. If each assembler is doing more work, fewer assemblers will be needed. In that case, the number of TVs getting made in B might have stayed the same. Look at the options: A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased. Not required by the conclusion. Perhaps number of TVs being sold in V has actually reduced and more are getting exported to B. So overall number of TVs being made is the same. So number of assemblers in Vernland could have easily stayed the same. Also, even if they did increase in number, we don't need them to increase by the same number. It is possible that V assemblers are more efficient and 10 V assemblers are equivalent to 20 B assemblers. B. Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have. Not required by the conclusion. The TVs could be exactly the same. They could be cheaper because of which they could be getting imported from V. C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years. This is an assumption. We are assuming that the reduction in the number of assemblers is not because of an increase in the productivity of the assemblers. If the assemblers have got more productive, fewer assemblers could have been required while the number of TVs produced could be the same and hence the import would not have increased. When we say that the import must have increased, we are assuming that the assemblers' efficiency has not increased (which means that time taken by each assembler to produce a TV on average has not decreased). Correct. D. The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years. Not required by the conclusion. Perhaps number of TVs being sold in V has actually reduced and more are getting exported to B. So overall number of TVs being made is the same. E. The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years. Not required by the conclusion. What happens to the hourly wages of assemblers in V and B in future is not a concern for this in this argument. We are only concerned about what has been happening in the last 3 yrs. Answer (C) Check the assumption discussion here: https://youtu.be/O0ROJfljRLU A Hard Assumption Question: https://youtu.be/0j4tovGifIg

Ekland · Answer

ASSUMPTION FLUX
Thanks  VeritasPrepKarishma .

I get this message from what you said. C is based on multilayered reasoning kind of.. which is common in the other og-700 level questions. In this unique one you essentially assess the options by asking WHAT led to the fact in the option? Then the WHAT has an answer that provides alternative cause to somthing in the premise... EVEN THOUGH what led to reduced hour, efficient process, might not necessarily offset the reduced output but the fact that it might is enough of a good assumption. am I right? cos if it MUST then it wouldn't be an assumption but an inference. And also, EVEN THOUGH this particular alternative cause didn't totally disprove the other cause(it didn't suggest slightly that both didn't play. it didn't show/suggest that the improved process totally offset output reduction such that no need for V import. We just assumed it). I get it.
What I didn't get is folks telling me negating C made the conclusion to crumble. Where did they get that from? it didn't work like that.

KarishmaB · Answer

You are over-thinking this. 
Why do you assume that there is reduced output? We know that number of hours and quality of effort are two different parameters. It is certainly possible that in 1 hour, you do the same work that I do in 3 hrs. So if I worked for 3 hrs while you did for 1 hr, can I say that your output MUST BE lower than mine? Will I wonder whether your increased productivity was able to completely offset the fewer hrs you took? No. For all I know, you could have done twice the work I did. When I say "fewer hrs but better productivity", you have no idea how to compare the output.  So you can't really conclude anything.

You have certain premises. On the basis of those you arrive at a conclusion. Sometimes, to arrive at a conclusion, you assume a few things. You just have to identify one of the assumptions.

How do these premises lead to the conclusion?

- The hourly wage of assemblers in V is much lower than that in B. 
- 3 yrs ago, B dropped all tariffs on TVs imported from V.  (here I assumed that the price of V tv is now comparable to the price of a B tv) 
- Number of TVs sold annually in B is same. 
- But number of assemblers in B has decreased.  (here I assumed that fewer tvs are getting made in B because fewer assemblers are working)

Conclusion: Trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions B imports annually from V has increased.

If I negate the assumption, this is what I get:

- The hourly wage of assemblers in V is much lower than that in B. 
- 3 yrs ago, B dropped all tariffs on TVs imported from V. 
- Number of TVs sold annually in B is same. 
- Number of assemblers in B has decreased. The assemblers of B have become much more productive.

Now, is there anything I would like to conclude from the given premises? Can I say that it indicates that B is importing tvs from V? No. We don't have any indication for the same. That is how negation of an assumption breaks down the conclusion.

BrentGMATPrepNow · Answer

Let's use the  Negation technique  with this Assumption question.
First, let's summarize the argument:

Premise: Vernland TV assemblers paid less than Borodia TV assemblers 
Premise: Borodia dropped tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, and # TV's sold in Borodia has not changed 
Premise: Statistics show drop in # of Borodian TV assemblers 
Conclusion: Updated stats likely to show Borodia now importing MORE Vernland TVs

The conclusion suggests that the DECREASE in the number of Borodian TV assemblers, will mean that Borodia will produce FEWER TVs. As a result, Borodia will have to import MORE TV's from Vernland  
 
Now apply negation technique (we're looking for an answer choice that, when negated, INVALIDATES the conclusion):
A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has   NOT   increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
Does this INVALIDATE the conclusion? No, it doesn't.

B. Televisions assembled in Vernland   DO NOT   have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.
Does this INVALIDATE the conclusion? No, it doesn't.

C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television   HAS   decreased significantly during the past three years. Does this INVALIDATE the conclusion? YES. 
If it takes less time to make a TV, then the decrease in Borodian TV assemblers does not necessarily mean that fewer TV's will be produced in Borodia. If there is no change in the # of TVs produced in Borodia, there's no reason to conclude that more TV's will be imported from Vernland

Answer: C

Cheers,
Brent

s8kadian · Answer

IMO C

Fact:  The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. 
 Fact:  Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. 
 Fact:  However, recent statistics show a drop in the number of television assemblers in Borodia.

Conclusion:  Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.

Assumption: with the decrease in number of local assemblers, there will be a shortage of local product -- and to fulfill the demand , Borodia will import from Vernland

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
B. Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.
 C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.
   they incorrectly assume that - there will be a shortage , hence imports will be made 
D. The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.
E. The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years.

gmatexam439 · Answer

The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a drop in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased. - We can't say that the number of assemblers have increased. The number of televisions assembled per assembler could also increase. 
B. Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have. - Features? out of scope 
C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years. - Correct. If the number of hours to build a TV has not decreased, then that means that the existing Borodians are not building more TV than they used to before. 
D. The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years. - significantly? extreme language .
E. The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years. - Hourly wage? out of scope

The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long

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