From 1996 to 2004, the average family income in a certain c

Bunuel

We can add "EXCEPT" tag and remove "Weaken" tag for this ques.

From 1996 to 2004, the average family income in a certain country decreased by 10 percent, after adjustments for inflation. Opponents of the political party that ruled during this time claim that this was due to mismanagement of the economy by that party.

Each of the following rejoinders, if true, directly counters the opponents' explanation of the decrease in average family income EXCEPT:

(A) There had been a rise in family income in 1996, after adjustments for inflation. - CORRECT. At best it gives a slight hint towards a possible mismanagement by that political party's govt. Even though AFI increased, there was decrease in that period. However, it doesn't counters explicitly, but certainly points fingers. Hence relatively doesn't counters.

(B) For noneconomic reasons, fewer families had multiple incomes at the end of the period than at the beginning. - WRONG. Yes, it counters in the manner that fewer families contributed less, thus decreasing AFI. Was that so due to mismanagement? Surely not because the reason given was noneconomic - something that must not have been under economic circles of that political party's govt.

(C) During the period, international events beyond the control of the country's government had a negative effect on family incomes in the country. - WRONG. An easy elimination since it gives an alternative reason for such decrease.

(D) Younger wage earners usually earn less than older ones, and the average age of household wage earners fell during most years in the past several decades. - WRONG. Certainly not an economic reason but demographic one. Again beyond the controls of that political party's govt.

(E) The biggest decreases in family income resulted from policies enacted before the ruling party came to power in 1996. - WRONG. Those biggest decreases created a dent so deep that the impact was felt in 2004 as well. Again something not in the economic realms of that political party's govt.

The problem with this passage is that it takes three u-turns in the form of
1. opposition by the opponents
2. countering the opponents' explanation
3. by going for 'EXCEPT' choice

Answer A.

Kushchokhani, Although it doesn't make a whole lot of difference, not sure why you would want to do that? This is both an Except and Weaken question - the other four options all weaken the conclusion, one doesn't. So, it is only fair to classify this as a Weaken question. One can frame "Except" category questions on top of Strengthen or Weaken or Inference. So, for me, "Except" alone doesn't help me narrow down the search space much when I am, let's say, interested in practicing a specific genre of questions. But then, of course, it's just my two cents.

Cheers

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.