In 1998 unemployment in some regions of the United States

1998 dont have similar industries doesnt says whether region of low employment has low industries or region of of high employment has low industries

Hi,

I think A goes well.
Both A and C looks good for me.

Posted from my mobile device

mikemcgarry can you please explain this. I think A is better choice then C.

IMO

As per A) The regions with the lowest unemployment rates had many of the same kinds of industries as those in the regions with high unemployment, but this was not the case in 1998.

So even if in 1998, region with lower & high unemployment had different kind of industries, people can still make a switch & join the new kind of industry. This may not be a reason for reduced migration.
This option could have correct with the assumption that people in one kind of industries remain in the same throughout.

(A) The regions with the lowest unemployment rates had many of the same kinds of industries as those in the regions with high unemployment, but this was not the case in 1998.
If they had the same kind of industries then the shift should have happened since reskilling wasn't an issue and the competition should have eleminated the jobs and creating new ones in low unemployment regions therefore out

(B) In contrast to 1988, the regions with the lowest unemployment rates had the largest number of new jobs, although substantially fewer of the new jobs required retraining.
This should mean a shift should have happen since the conditions were ideal therefore out

(C) In contrast to 1988, housing costs in the areas with the lowest unemployment rates were susbstantially higher than housing costs in other parts of the country
They were unable to move as basic facility of housing was unavailable a valid argument therefore let us hang on to it

(D) The unemployment rate in countries outside of the United States was higher than it was ten years before.
This is inconsequential to the passage and have no impact on the argument therefore out

(E) Unemployment benefits in the regions of high unemployment were slightly lower than they were ten years earlier in regions of high unemployment.
Slightly lower doesn't help us understand why there was a substantial shift in the demographics therefore out


Therefore IMO C

Poor question indeed.

People who are split between A and D are both right in their own domains.

For A: The unemployed workers in areas of low employment moved into places with high employment and got readily absorbed as the existing industries were suited for their existing skill set, but this wasn't the case in 1998. Hence, less migrations in 1998.

For D: Maybe the high housing costs could offset the budget of these migrant workers so much that they chose to remain unemployed than to move into new areas with high housing costs. Hence, less migrations in 1998.

Both the answer choices require explicit "outside information" to choose one over other.

I don't think this is a good representation of proper GMAT-like CR questions.

Ma man this question is bullshit. Don´t come near San Diego hood - Andrea del Saz