Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2)

Hi Experts,

Unable to comprehend the answer choices, could you please help?

Hello zoezhuyan,

Let us suppose the government assistance is 100$. Gainfully employed here means having a job that pays more than 100$. So, if one is not gainfully employed, s/he receives less than 100$ as wage. Let us take an example of 80$ as this wage. The government will supplement this amount to make a total of 100$, which is the assistance given to the unemployed. So, the government supplements them with 20$.

But this supplement cannot take the total income to an amount greater than the assistance to the unemployed. That is, one will not get a total amount of 110$ as a sum of lower-than-assistance wage and governmental supplement no matter what. The only way to earn above that by a job is to be gainfully employed. That is what the given statement tells you. In other words,

If one did not already get more than the assistance, the supplement wouldn't take them to that position.

This is a premise in the given argument.

Hello,
Could you please explain why option C is correct and option D is incorrect?
It'll be great if you could explain with the help of numbers especially for option D

Passage Analysis

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance.
The editorial says unemployed adults receive an amount as government assistance in Ledland.

To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply.
With the intention of reducing unemployment, the government proposed a scheme.
According to this scheme, for those people who work for a pay that is less than the government assistance, the government will provide a supplemental pay to make the total pay equal to the government assistance.
This allows employers to hire workers cheaply.

However, the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed.
But this supplement will not raise any worker’s income above the amount paid as government assistance to unemployed people.

Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.
Thus, the conclusion is that unemployed people will not have any financial incentive to accept such jobs which will get them a supplement.

Question Stem Analysis

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

This is a typical weakener question. Which statement, if true, most weakens the argument?

Prethinking

Weakener Framework

What new information will decrease one’s confidence in the conclusion that unemployed people will not have any financial incentive to accept such jobs which will get them a supplement the most?
Given that

• In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance.
• To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance.
• The supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed.

Weakener 1- The supplement allows unemployed people to gain work experience with a minimum payment equal to governmental assistance, which will later fetch them higher-paying jobs
Weakener 2- The employers provide other incentives such as food and stay for those employed effectively making the total financial savings more than in the case of government assistance.

Answer Choice Analysis

(A) The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.
INCORRECT
This does not provide a reason for unemployed adults who get government assistance to engage in labor. Hence this is not the right answer.

(B) Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.
INCORRECT
Whether neighboring countries have a higher or lower unemployment rate is not relevant to the argument as the conclusion is not about the success of the plan in reducing unemployment. It is about the financial incentive for unemployed people. Hence this is an incorrect answer.

(C) At any given time, people who are currently employed have the best chance of being offered a job that will give them an income significantly greater than government assistance would give them.
CORRECT
This option is in line with our first weakener. It gives a financial reason for people to go for work even if it will not pay more than financial assistance by the government at present. Hence this is the correct answer.

(D)The financial assistance that the government provides to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage.
INCORRECT
Suppose the governmental assistance for people with no income is 100$. Say, the average starting wage is 120$. This could mean that there are people who get 80$, 100$, or 140$ but the average starting wage is 120$.
For those who get 80$, they get a supplement of 20$. Those who gets 100$ or above gets no supplement. The conclusion is only about jobs that would entitle people to the government supplement (i.e. only about those jobs that have a wage <100$, say 80$).
How does this provide a financial incentive to those who are currently unemployed? In any case, an unemployed person, who was getting 100$ as government support would still have no financial incentive to go for a job where he would earn 80$ and get 20$ as supplement.
Hence, this is not the correct answer.

(E) People sometimes choose a job for reasons that have nothing to do with the financial benefits it offers.
INCORRECT
This option is not relevant for the conclusion at hand. Hence this cannot be the correct answer.

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

P : unemployed receive government assistance
P : job paying less than assistance <- government assists
C : unemployed will have no financial incentive to accept jobs

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

(A) The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.
-> This option supports the conclusion.

(B) Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.
-> Irrelevant.

(C) At any given time, people who are currently employed have the best chance of being offered a job that will give them an income significantly greater than government assistance would give them.
-> Correct. Although unemployed people will not have a chance to get a job with significant wage, he or she will have such chance next time when looking for new job.

(D) The financial assistance that the government provides to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage.
-> Irrelevant. Although the average starting wage is very high, there might still be people who earn lower than government assistance and is supplemented by the policy.

(E) People sometimes choose a job for reasons that have nothing to do with the financial benefits it offers.
-> Irrelevant. The topic is concentrated in financial interest.

CONCLUSION - Unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement

GIVEN -

1) Unemployed get government assistance
2) Government propose to supplement those who accept jobs less than government aid
3) This leads to employers to hire cheap
4) Supplement won't raise the salary beyond the govt relief

WEAKNER - What new information would reduce the belief in the conclusion?

ANSWER CHOICE ANALYSIS -

A) Taxes are not mentioned in the argument
B) Neighboring countries don't impact the conclusion
C) CORRECT - Unemployed people have less chance to get a job, so financial aid from the govt would help
D) Actually strengthens the argument
E) Sometimes? Wrong

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

(A) The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.

(B) Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.

(C) At any given time, people who are currently employed have the best chance of being offered a job that will give them an income significantly greater than government assistance would give them.

(D) The financial assistance that the government provides to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage.

(E) People sometimes choose a job for reasons that have nothing to do with the financial benefits it offers.

How to choose between C and D.
Our objective is to find the financial incentive to choose a low income job rather than to stay as unemployed to receive the govt assistance.
C talks about that financial incentive. So, it’s weakening the argument
D is not weakening the argument. If the avg income is greater than govt assistance , why don’t they go for job. It’s good for them . But there is no relation between financial incentive of unemployed ppl to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement and the objective of the question . Our reasoning is to to check for the ppl whose income is lesser than govt assistance.

Posted from my mobile device

Understanding the argument -
A person is unemployed, so get $5000 from the government.
The government is encouraging people to take jobs that pay less than $5000 instead of staying unemployed; if one takes a job for $3000, the government will fund the rest, $2000, to match it to $5000.
The conclusion is there is no. incentive to accept the jobs that would entitle them to supplement ($2000 as in our example)

What if someone takes a low-paying job for $3000, and they have a better chance of getting a better-paying job, say $10,000, than if they were unemployed? That'll weaken the conclusion. Yes, that's what option C does.

Option Elimination

(A) The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families. - The government is paying supplements/assistance out of taxes collected. Taxing it again? Ridiculous. Out of scope.

(B) Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has. - Comparison of unemployment rates is out of scope.

(C) At any given time, people who are currently employed have the best chance of being offered a job that will give them an income significantly greater than government assistance would give them. - ok.

(D) The financial assistance that the government provides to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage. - out of scope.

(E) People sometimes choose a job for reasons that have nothing to do with the financial benefits it offers. - Why they choose a job is out of scope.