GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 21 Jul 2018, 00:20

Close

GMAT Club Daily Prep

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

BSchool Thread Master
User avatar
Joined: 28 May 2012
Posts: 127
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Strategy
GPA: 3.33
WE: Information Technology (Retail)
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Sep 2012, 22:32
venmic 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. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job
seekers who are unemployed.
D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the
yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.
E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.


Can an expert please explain why C is the answer

according to A if the gov collects no taxes for the unemployed it is a financial incentive so it weakens the argument/conclusion where itt states that the unemployed have no Financial incentive with this

I would go with C because in the overall argument it would prove that the unemployed get lower paying jobs hence no financial incentive

Please explain and thankyou for your help and time....:)


This was a good one ! I could land up on C only using the POE however, Karishma has explained it very well.
_________________

You want something, go get it . Period !

Expert Post
3 KUDOS received
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8132
Location: Pune, India
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Nov 2013, 20:43
3
sr2013 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. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.

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

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.


The argument is same but one of the options is changed. The OA is still C but what is wrong with D.
In option D the unemployed has incentive to take up jobs as the assistance provided is less than the average starting wage.


Supplement will be paid to people whose starting wage will be less than the govt assistance. It doesn't matter what the AVERAGE starting wage is. Say, it is $1000 a month and assistance paid is $800. We are concerned about people who get $600 as starting wage. The govt is planning to provide supplement to them since they don't take up the $600 job since they get $800 for sitting at home and doing nothing. The argument is saying that these people who will get $600 will still not work even if govt pays them $200 supplement because they get $800 anyway even if they just sit at home. Then why work? (financially speaking)
What actually weakens the argument is that people who start with $600 (and get $800 due to the supplement) get higher paying jobs subsequently. So financially it does make sense since after 6 months they may get $1000 job. If they will just take the assistance and sit at home, they will get $800 only after 6 months too.
_________________

Karishma
Private Tutor for GMAT
Contact: bansal.karishma@gmail.com

Intern
Intern
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jul 2013
Posts: 16
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Jan 2015, 17:10
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. People who are currently employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs
than job seekers who are unemployed.

D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less
than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy
the work.

the question is from gmat prep exam pack.
option c has "currently" missing from it.
is option C still correct. As it talks about currently employed adults whereas we are concerned with unemployed adults.
Expert Post
2 KUDOS received
e-GMAT Representative
User avatar
G
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2556
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Jan 2015, 11:45
2
Dear Shyam,

Responding to your request to answer your post on this thread. :-)

Adding "currently" would defeat the purpose of this choice. It's actually meant to indicate that currently unemployed people may want to take up lower-paying jobs because doing so would increase their chances of switching to a better-paying job.

Let me elaborate a bit on this. Let's say Sheila is unemployed and gets $50 a week from the government. If she takes up job#1, which would pay her $40 per week (+$10/week from the government), she would then belong to the category of people who are employed and have a good chance of switching to a higher-paying job. So she could, for example, apply for job#2, which would pay her $60 per week. She'd be eligible for this hike since she'd already be employed at job#1. If she were unemployed and applying for job#2, she may not be offered $60 per week. So, as an unemployed person, she does actually have a financial incentive to apply for job#1 because it would give her the opportunity to apply for a higher-paying job, an opportunity she wouldn't have if she were unemployed.

I hope this helps!

Regards,
Meghna
_________________












| '4 out of Top 5' Instructors on gmatclub | 70 point improvement guarantee | www.e-gmat.com

Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2722
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Nov 2015, 17:11
My pre-thinking was that employed people get benefits, at no cost, that otherwise would cost money.

Since the answer choice did not provide anything similar, I eliminated the rest and got to the C. If employed people can get better money in time, then definitely being employed is better than not being employed.
1 KUDOS received
Current Student
User avatar
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
Posts: 880
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 660 Q49 V31
GPA: 3.98
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Jul 2016, 10:19
1
ttanvir 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. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.

D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.


Conclusion:- There is no financial incentive for unemployed to accept the job.

Reason- Money that is given to unemployed > money offered at the low paying job +govt. assistance.

Thing to find- What weakens the argument? Or what is that which shows the presence of financial incentive in accepting the job.

Possible weakeners:-
1) There is bonus given at the job which is not included in above argument. And the bonus is hefty.
2) The assistance given to unemployed can not be used actually. Govt. deposits the money in an account that can not be drawn within certain period.
3) There is a reason to get the job as it is beneficial in log term.

A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families. This is a good reason to be unemployed.

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

C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed. Bingo! Long term benefit is there in accepting the job.

D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level. It doesn't answer if the person will accept the job.

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work. We want to know their financial decision.

_________________

I welcome critical analysis of my post!! That will help me reach 700+

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 26 Dec 2015
Posts: 277
Location: United States (CA)
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
WE: Investment Banking (Venture Capital)
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 May 2017, 05:55
my issue with this Q is the OA assumes a lot: (1) that the unemployed becomes employed and then (2) assumes the newly employed get higher paid jobs. i'm looking for something that weakens the idea that unemployed have no financial incentive to accept jobs for govt supplement, i want something that deals w/ this, not deals w/ (well what if these unemployed ppl become employed and what if this also happens?)
Expert Post
Top Contributor
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1840
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 May 2017, 12:24
Top Contributor
Quote:
my issue with this Q is the OA assumes a lot: (1) that the unemployed becomes employed and then (2) assumes the newly employed get higher paid jobs. i'm looking for something that weakens the idea that unemployed have no financial incentive to accept jobs for govt supplement, i want something that deals w/ this, not deals w/ (well what if these unemployed ppl become employed and what if this also happens?)

The question stem says, "Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?" That means that when analyzing choice (C) we can assume that the statement is 100% accurate and that "people who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed."

The conclusion is that, "unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement" proposed by the government. Say, for example, that an unemployed Ledland adult, Jim, is unemployed and given $100 per week in government assistance. If he takes a job that pays $75 per week and the government pays him $25 (as proposed), he will still make $100 per week. Thus, as argued in the passage, he will have no financial incentive to accept that job (his income will be the same). But if statement (C) is true and Jim takes the job, he will then be MORE likely to get a HIGHER-paying job than if he were unemployed. If he doesn't take the job, his income will definitely stay at $100 per week (in government assistance). If he takes the job, and if statement (C) is true, his income might increase because he is more likely to get a higher-paying job.

In this case, Jim would have a financial incentive to accept the job that entitles him to the supplement, so choice (C) definitely weakens the argument. True, he might not get a higher-paying job, but, taking choice (C) to be 100% accurate, "people who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed." This is enough to seriously weaken the argument of the editorial.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for $29.99 | Time management on verbal

Expert Post
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
S
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 284
CAT Tests
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Dec 2017, 09:39
Please note that this passage appears with slightly different answer choices in EP2. A new thread has been created to discuss that variation of the question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/editorial-in ... l#p1988124
_________________

www.gmatninja.com

Expert Post
1 KUDOS received
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8132
Location: Pune, India
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Jan 2018, 06:39
1
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
venmic 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. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job
seekers who are unemployed.
D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the
yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.
E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.


Can an expert please explain why C is the answer

according to A if the gov collects no taxes for the unemployed it is a financial incentive so it weakens the argument/conclusion where itt states that the unemployed have no Financial incentive with this

I would go with C because in the overall argument it would prove that the unemployed get lower paying jobs hence no financial incentive

Please explain and thankyou for your help and time....:)


Responding to a pm:

The question is about financial incentives.

This is what the situation is: Say, the govt pays $400/week to the unemployed. Someone who is getting less than $400/week in a job will not work. He will instead like to be unemployed and receive $400. Now, the govt is planning to supplement the income of people who get less than $400. Say, if you get $300/week, the govt will give you $100 to make it $400 but not more than $400.

Conclusion: Unemployed people will have no financial incentiveto accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Makes sense, right? Whether you work or you don't you still make only $400. So you might have other incentives to work e.g. you like work etc but you don't have a financial incentive to work. What will weaken this conclusion? It will be weakened if you can find a financial incentive that will make people work.

(C) says that people who are already employed get better pay if they switch jobs (as compared to those who are unemployed). This could be a financial incentive for people to take up jobs. They take low paying jobs right now but still get $400 (after adding govt supplement) and later switch and get better paying jobs, possibly jobs that pay more than $400. Hence, this option gives us a financial incentive.

(A) actually strengthens the argument, if at all.
A - "The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families."
If the govt collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals, the unemployed will get $400/week. But the employed will pay taxes on their salary ($300) and may not pay taxes on $100 of govt assistance but overall they will make less than $400. So there is certainly no financial incentive to work. Instead, you make less money if you work. This makes a better case for the author's opinion which is "unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs"


Responding to a pm:
Quote:
Hi Karishma,

Could you please elaborate on why option D over here is wrong with an example?


We are looking for a financial incentive that will make people work.

D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the
yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.

What the govt defines as poverty level is immaterial. The point is that the unemployed people receive the same $400 which they will get if they take up a job which pays less than $400. They have no financial incentive to work. The fact that $400 is less than poverty line doesn't come into play since they will not get more than $400 in either case.
_________________

Karishma
Private Tutor for GMAT
Contact: bansal.karishma@gmail.com

Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance &nbs [#permalink] 06 Jan 2018, 06:39

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 31 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  

Events & Promotions

PREV
NEXT


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.