Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized for You
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Application deadlines are just around the corner, so now’s the time to start studying for the GMAT! Start today and save 25% on your GMAT prep. Valid until May 30th.
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2)
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 28 Dec 2017, 10:20
1
13
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
55% (hard)
Question Stats:
64% (02:04) correct 36% (02:21) wrong based on 434 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
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.
I faced this question in GMATPrep Exam 3, but the answer choices were quite different from what stated here. Attached is image for reference. Needless to say, I got it wrong
Attachment:
LedlandUnemployed.jpg [ 293.07 KiB | Viewed 4305 times ]
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2)
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Nov 2017, 23:10
2
AkshayKS21 wrote:
I faced this question in GMATPrep Exam 3, but the answer choices were quite different from what stated here. Attached is image for reference. Needless to say, I got it wrong
the conclusion -- unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.
(D) The financial assistance that the government provides to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage.
As per my understanding, option D also weakens somewhat, but C is the better one. As we are looking for the best option out of the five. My reasoning for option D,
If the government provides financial assistance which is less than the average starting wage to people with no other source of income, then such people would be more interested in doing the job rather than relying on the financial assistance itself. Also, if you notice carefully, the conclusion is about the UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE but we do not know whether they have some other source of income or not. Unemployment does not mean that THEY WILL definitely does not have the other sources of INCOME AS WELL. So, if the unemployed people are not having the other sources of income as well, then the conclusion is strongly weakened. But if the unemployed people are having some other sources of income, then the starting wage may not seem lucrative to such people even if it is more than the financial assistance. So, option C is the clear winner.
GMATNinja, can you please review my reasoning for option D, the one mentioned in the GMATPrep snapshot just above my post and not the one in the existing post on the GMATClub.
Please review my reasoning for eliminating option D:
Let's assign numbers to the scenario mentioned in the argument:
1. Current income of unemployed adults: $0 2. Government assistance provided to unemployed adults: $100 3. Salary of Jobs below the government supplement: $60 5. New Government assistance: $40
Option D : The financial assistance that the government provides ($40) to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage ($60).
SO WHAT ? The sum total of what the unemployed people get under the new scheme is still $100. It strengthens the conclusion of the argument that THERE IS NO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE STILL GET $100 in total
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2)
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 29 Dec 2017, 16:50
1
2
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.
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2)
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Dec 2017, 09:52
1
GMATNinjaTwo wrote:
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.
SidJainGMAT wrote:
Hi Verbal Experts,
Could you please elaborate on why option D over here is wrong with an example? I am a bit confused between C & D.
Please review my reasoning for eliminating option D:
Let's assign numbers to the scenario mentioned in the argument:
1. Current income of unemployed adults: $0 2. Government assistance provided to unemployed adults: $100 3. Salary of Jobs below the government supplement: $60 5. New Government assistance: $40
Option D : The financial assistance that the government provides ($40) to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage ($60).
SO WHAT ? The sum total of what the unemployed people get under the new scheme is still $100. It strengthens the conclusion of the argument that THERE IS NO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE STILL GET $100 in total
Hence, we can eliminate option D
Thanks fmik7894, your reasoning was spot on!
_________________
Please review my reasoning for eliminating option D:
Let's assign numbers to the scenario mentioned in the argument:
1. Current income of unemployed adults: $0 2. Government assistance provided to unemployed adults: $100 3. Salary of Jobs below the government supplement: $60 5. New Government assistance: $40
Option D : The financial assistance that the government provides ($40) to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage ($60).
SO WHAT ? The sum total of what the unemployed people get under the new scheme is still $100. It strengthens the conclusion of the argument that THERE IS NO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE STILL GET $100 in total
Hence, we can eliminate option D
I am still not entirely sold on C (I picked D). Your example assumes that the recipient receives 2 types of assistance, $100 and $40. I'm not sure where this came from since the passage states that unemployed receive government assistance. So if government assistance is $100, and starting wages are $60, then the government will pay $40 to those who are employed to make it even. However, if the starting wage is $120, which is higher than the $100 of government assistance, then isn't there financial incentive to work?
With C, the advantage is clearly to those who already have a job. What if there is a tight job market? The incentive to work can go down
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2)
[#permalink]
Show Tags
25 Feb 2019, 21:21
bpdulog and siddharthfrancis Although I picked D as well but after reading the explanations here I think what makes C a logical choice is the relation between " Unemployed people " and " people who have no other income ". They aren't the same. People with no other source of income can be physically disabled or special need people or can be any other set of people. Hence this choice is not specifically talking about the Unemployed people (which is the set we are concerned with). I hope I am correct. Let me know if this makes sense.
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2)
[#permalink]
Show Tags
25 Feb 2019, 21:23
bpdulog and siddharthfrancis Although I picked D as well but after reading the explanations here I think what makes C a logical choice is the relation between " Unemployed people " and " people who have no other income ". They aren't the same. People with no other source of income can be physically disabled or special need people or can be any other set of people. Hence this choice is not specifically talking about the Unemployed people (which is the set we are concerned with). I hope I am correct. Let me know if this makes sense.
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2)
[#permalink]
Show Tags
26 Feb 2019, 03:26
Can someone shed light on why A is dismissed..I feel that if government does not collect taxes on part of worker's income it would be an incentive to become employed. Why is my compass pointing in the wrong direction.
_________________
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2)
[#permalink]
Show Tags
26 Feb 2019, 07:50
Hi Sony,
Happy to respond! Though I am not an expert I will share my reasoning. “A” mentions that if an unemployed receives government assistance then only there will be no taxes. If they are employed then they may be required to pay taxes which in some way strengthens the argument. Hope this clarifies! Thank you!
As per the option it says government do not collect taxes on the assistance provided to unemployed which in turns strengthen the argument's conclusion that now unemployed people will have incentive to not take the jobs. So this is opposite answer trap. Hope it helps to clarify your doubt.
Please review my reasoning for eliminating option D:
Let's assign numbers to the scenario mentioned in the argument:
1. Current income of unemployed adults: $0 2. Government assistance provided to unemployed adults: $100 3. Salary of Jobs below the government supplement: $60 5. New Government assistance: $40
Option D : The financial assistance that the government provides ($40) to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage ($60).
SO WHAT ? The sum total of what the unemployed people get under the new scheme is still $100. It strengthens the conclusion of the argument that THERE IS NO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE STILL GET $100 in total
Hence, we can eliminate option D
I am still not entirely sold on C (I picked D). Your example assumes that the recipient receives 2 types of assistance, $100 and $40. I'm not sure where this came from since the passage states that unemployed receive government assistance. So if government assistance is $100, and starting wages are $60, then the government will pay $40 to those who are employed to make it even. However, if the starting wage is $120, which is higher than the $100 of government assistance, then isn't there financial incentive to work?
With C, the advantage is clearly to those who already have a job. What if there is a tight job market? The incentive to work can go down
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2)
[#permalink]
Show Tags
10 May 2019, 12:49
AkshayKS21 wrote:
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.
I faced this question in GMATPrep Exam 3, but the answer choices were quite different from what stated here. Attached is image for reference. Needless to say, I got it wrong :P
In this argument, we draw the conclusion that "unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement" basically because according to the argument - the incentive would be a wash - as it would make up for any amount below unemployment - but nothing beyond that point. So, individuals wouldn't be financially incentivized to take on jobs that would (after the supplement) pay the same amount as unemployment.
Answer choice (C) gives us a reason the incentive may be helpful despite this - as it would allow individuals to take on lower-paying jobs in hopes of advancing to higher paying jobs, without risking taking on a job that pays below the unemployment level. So, despite not bringing the individuals to a higher pay level than unemployment - it puts them in a position to obtain a higher paying job without the disadvantage of a lower-than-unemployment job in the meantime. This provides a financial incentive to said individuals.
Answer choice (D) on the other hand, doesn't matter to us, since it is irrelevant to those who would earn above the unemployment assistance level, and for those who earn below that level - it is a wash (as mentioned above). So, it doesn't weaken the conclusion that "unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement" - since to do so, we need a reason unemployed people might have some financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement. (C) gives this to us, while (D) does not.
I hope this helps!
_________________
Hailey Cusimano
Veritas Prep Live Online Instructor and GMAT Enthusiast (seriously!)
Want to chat more about GMAT strategies for success? Come join me for a class!
close
64% (02:04) correct 
