Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont s critics complain

I am not quite convinced with the reasoning given by folks in this discussion -

Firstly, The argument itself states that "Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than were eliminated, but each year since Delmont took office the average pay for the new jobs created has been higher than that year’s average pay for jobs citywide. " Thus from the argument we clearly know that 1. more jobs were getting created then were eliminated. 2. Plus, we also know that for the jobs created the average pay was higher than the city average at that time. And option C states the same thing for eliminated jobs. But, there is no correlation between : if the average pay of jobs created was more than average pay for jobs eliminated. Both of them were higher than the city average. But if the avg pay of jobs created was higher than jobs eliminated then Mayor did a good job.

and option C states - "C. Each year during Mayor Delmont’s tenure, the average pay for jobs that were eliminated has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide."

Is the reasoning behind C - "The jobs that were eliminated already had average pay higher than city average. Than, what did the mayor do? however, again we dont know if average pay for jobs created was greater than average pay for jobs eliminated or vice versa.

Am I missing something? Can someone explain, please.

Thanks DMMK, for the great explanation. Thanks for taking the time to read my points and explaining them one by one. CR is tricky!!

So if a certain information is missing in the point is put forward by the argument. We can challenge that point, by presenting another fact, which could question - the fact presented in the argument.

Is the reasong for rejecting A - is that it states about the present unemployment rate, but we dont know if Mayor is still in office now?

I am glad that I could help!

The reason why A is rejected is because A talks about Unemployment rate; which doesn't really affect the "reasonable conclusion" of the advertisement, since, the conclusion of the advertisement is that,"....throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger."

Explanation:
If you had to calculate the avg paycheck of the city, would you take into account the people who have no jobs? No, you wouldn't and because of this, your avg paycheck wouldn't not be affected by option A - even if the avg unemployment increased!

May be the unemployment increased because a huge batch of university students graduated.. but the main point being; unemployed folks are not part of the set that you need to take into consideration when calculating the avg paycheck, since they don't get a paycheck in the first place.

Therefore, A, does not do anything to weaken the argument of the advertisement.

Take away's:The good thing is that, You were on the right path to solve this problem, therefore, I personally feel that you probably just need more practice and problem like these would be a breeze... besides, CR is all about practice in my opinion.

Happy Studying!

i have a doubt in understanding answer D. does this option want to say that ratio of avg pay for the jobs eliminated every year to avg pay for the city is constant. please elaborate. tia..

A. The unemployment rate in the city is higher today than it was when Mayor Delmont took office.
discussion is abt pay not unemployement. irrelevant

B. The average pay for jobs in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
its actually strengthening not weaking.

C. Each year during Mayor Delmont’s tenure, the average pay for jobs that were eliminated has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide.
it clearly states old jobs also had higher pay. hence enough to conclude that mayor didnt do anything

D. Most of the jobs eliminated during Mayor Delmont’s tenure were in declining industries.
industry is out of scope.
E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently lower than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.

Same Argument but different question in the following link.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/political-advertisement-mayor-delmont-s-critics-complain-about-the-jo-12262.html?fl=similar
Great explanation by VerbalNinja

Hope it helps

HI gmat1393 , GMATNinja , nightblade354 , generis , SajjadAhmad

Please add the link in the question so that it can help the Users

Similar question with Strengthening the conclusion.

https://gmatclub.com/forum/political-ad ... fl=similar

Political Advertisement:Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont’s leadership. Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than were eliminated, but each year since Delmont took office the average pay for the new jobs created has been higher than that year’s average pay for jobs citywide. So it stands to reason that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument in the advertisement?

Pre-thinking:
An assumption made by the author is that the average paycheck citywide did not significantly decrease otherwise the increase in average paycheck for the jobs created would not compensate for the decrease.
So any statement weakening this assumption should weaken the argument.

A. The unemployment rate in the city is higher today than it was when Mayor Delmont took office.
The unemployment rate is not of our concern here. We are interested in the average paycheck. Hence incorrect

B. The average pay for jobs in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
This suggests that probably the increase in the average paychecks of jobs created helped raising the average. But we don't know the average paycheck of the jobs eliminated so this answer choice does not have a clear impact on the conclusion. Hence incorrect

C. Each year during Mayor Delmont’s tenure, the average pay for jobs that were eliminated has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide.
Correct. This information suggests a decrease in the average paycheck.

D. Most of the jobs eliminated during Mayor Delmont’s tenure were in declining industries.
The area of the eliminated job is irrelevant to the argument. Hence incorrect.

E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently lower than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.
The average o the city and of the suburbs is irrelevant to the argument since they could compensate for each other or not. Hence incorrect

Hi carcass Bunuel

The link to the 'Similar question with Strengthening the conclusion' takes me to an error not found page, can you please help me with the link for the strengthening question for the same passage. I have tried searching for it but to no avail.


Thanks
Saurabh

Fixed the link. Here is that question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/political-ad ... 12262.html

Hope it helps.

For me, it came down to A vs C.

(A) I decided to rule out because unemployment has no effect on the average paycheck. If you don't receive a paycheck, your paycheck does not equal $0.00. It just doesn't exist and does not factor into the average.

(C) Not great, but this is the answer. It has an obvious drawback. It doesn't tell you if the average job lost pays more than the average job added. Nevertheless, it somewhat weakens the argument.

AndrewN VeritasKarishma

I marked A as answer.
If unemployment rate in the city is higher today than it was when Mayor Delmont took office, that means more jobs are eliminated than created and the average pay of people also is no more a true statement.

Please help . Also how is C correct??

Hello, warrior1991. In the interest of helping you and the entire community, I will offer a full analysis of the question. Remember, in any weaken-the-argument question, you have to keep track of exactly what that argument says, or else associative reasoning can take over and lead you to an incorrect conclusion. Looking at this passage, we can identify the argument as the last line of the passage:


Our goal, then, is simply to attack the notion that the average paycheck... has been getting steadily bigger since Delmont took leadership. As long as we stick to this line of reasoning, it will be hard to go wayward.


I know that unemployment is tied to finances, but strictly speaking, the unemployed do not draw paychecks, so this group of people has no bearing on the the average paycheck or the argument that is based upon it. This answer choice is a distraction, nothing more.


Although average pay is mentioned, this new information does not affect the argument at all. In fact, if we are to take the second line of the passage at face value, then this answer choice looks more like a strengthener. (If average pay had been at a ten-year low, then average pay would seem to be increasing under Delmont.)


This answer touches on all the bases of the argument. If, each year under Delmont, the average pay for eliminated jobs has been greater than the average pay for the remaining jobs, then mathematically, it cannot be true that, as the argument posits, throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger. If you take off the top tier and add new jobs at a lower tier, then the average pay will decrease.


We are not interested in the types of jobs lost, but in the pay associated with the jobs that remain. This should be an easy elimination.


If the argument is based on the average pay for jobs in the city, then we are not interested in matching information for jobs in the suburbs. This information provides another distraction, nothing more.

I hope that helps clarify the matter. Again, stick to the exact argument to strengthen or weaken it. Watch your accuracy soar and your timing drop all the while. Thank you for thinking to ask me about this one.

- Andrew

AndrewN thanks for the comprehensive analysis.

However, in option C it says that average pay of the jobs that were eliminated is higher than the average pay for the jobs citywide.
From the argument also we have a statement that 'the average pay for the new jobs created has been higher than that year’s average pay for jobs citywide'.

Does that mean both the eliminated jobs and the new jobs have higher average pay than the average pay of the job citywide?? In my opinion YES.
And, if this is the case ,are we assuming that average pay of eliminated jobs is also higher than average pay of new jobs. Because only then we will be able to attack the conclusion that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger..

What if the average pay of eliminated jobs was less than average pay of new jobs created?? In that case we will not be able to attack the conclusion.

So option C lacks one more assumption in my opinion. Please help !

I agree with you that both the eliminated jobs and the new jobs have higher average pay than the average pay of the job citywide. That is supported by the passage and answer choice. But remember, Delmont is adding to the worker pool by hiring more than firing, so to speak, and what happens to averages when divided by a larger number? Sure, we do not have exact numbers to work with here, but we are looking for an answer that most seriously weakens the argument, and of the five options presented, (C) is the only one that can reasonably do so.

You have to pick and choose your battles with GMAT™ CR. If you sit there and work with numbers for 10 minutes in an attempt to disprove something—say, if the 10 jobs added were CEO-level positions with seven-figure salaries, while the 5 eliminated were more like $50,000-a-year jobs—you might feel validated, but that will do your test-taking experience no favors, I can assure you. Just knock out the easiest targets and work with what is left.

I appreciate your pursuing this one, though, and I hope my thoughts prove useful to you in your studies.

- Andrew

Thanks for the revert and thank you for explaining it nicely.

So,what you are suggesting is, even though there is a potential drawback (option C not telling us about the average pay of eliminated and added jobs), still one side of the coin is weakening the conclusion.

So if other options are not weakening as this options does, mark this one and move ahead is a wise strategy.

Of course, regarding circling back. My goal is to explain my approach to a problem clearly, and when other members challenge my thoughts, I feel compelled to clarify. Yes, you cannot overestimate the importance of forward momentum on the GMAT™. My own CR method consists of two sweeps of the answer choices. In the first sweep, I am looking to get rid of the worst options (what I call red light answers, such as (D) above), those that I am next to positive are incorrect, since they may not address the argument or may go in the opposite direction of what the question is asking (e.g., a strengthen option in a weaken question). In the second pass, I typically have two answer choices if I did not already eliminate four red light answers, and between those two, I check to see whether they follow the linear logic of the passage and satisfy the question being asked. I do not look for a correct answer, but I look for what is easier to attack. I eliminate that option and choose the other, safer bet. Before I adopted this method, CR was my worst area, and my timing was worse than it was for RC. But now, my accuracy is just as high as it is for any other type of question, and I can typically answer confidently in a minute and a half.

- Andrew