It is currently 22 Nov 2017, 19:18

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic

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

### Hide Tags

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 623

Kudos [?]: 535 [0], given: 16

Location: India
Re: GWD #16 V11 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2013, 22:38
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
manrisaw wrote:
Hello Karishma,

I very well agree with your line of reasoning. However, one small doubt,

Current teacher student ratio is not to be exceeded,

the above states in an indirect way that those children who are currently studying in govt. schools will continue to do so, but what if students from private schools shift to govt schools ? Will that not affect the current student teacher ratio?

Hope to get some clarifications on this.

Thanks
Manish

What do you mean by 'current student teacher ratio should not be exceeded'?
It means that if more students join, you will need to hire more teachers. Say if the current ratio is 10:1, it means that for every 10 students there is 1 teacher. If no of students increases, more teachers will be hired. If students move from private schools to govt schools in recession, no of students will increase. Since student teacher ratio cannot increase, more teachers will be hired. So a recession will not hurt teaching jobs at government-funded schools.

Let us analyze choice A. It says that the current student-teacher ratio is higher now at government funded schools than it was during the last recession. Let us assume the current period to be a period of stronger economy. A higher student-teacher ratio during the current period means that during the last recession period there were less students who attended the government funded schools. It cannot be more teachers because till now during recession, jobs were cut down. This implies more students attended the private schools during last recession than during the current period of stronger economy. We can reasonably conclude that cost was not a major factor in the students's decision in choosing the school, as private schools charge higher than the government funded schools. The other major factor being the quality of education should have weighed in more in the students decision in the choice of the school. Based on the above we can conclude that the government funded schools provided a better or at least no less quality education than the private schools.

Now with the decision of the government to make the education free, many more would want to join the government funded schools and so more teachers would be hired Thus choice A in fact would strengthen argument that there would not be a cut in the number of teachers jobs at the government funded schools.

Choice B in my opinion is not as solid because it doesn't automatically imply that the students who were studying at private schools during stronger economy would join the government funded schools during recession because as mentioned above there are two factors that weigh in students decision, being quality of education and cost of education. So if the private schools were markedly higher in the quality of education that they offer we would see little number of students moving to government funded schools during recession.

So to me choice A appears to strengthen the argument better.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com/regularcourse.php

Standardized Approaches

Kudos [?]: 535 [0], given: 16

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7745

Kudos [?]: 17853 [0], given: 235

Location: Pune, India
Re: GWD #16 V11 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Jan 2013, 23:18
I disagree.

SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Let us analyze choice A. It says that the current student-teacher ratio is higher now at government funded schools than it was during the last recession. Let us assume the current period to be a period of stronger economy. A higher student-teacher ratio during the current period means that during the last recession period there were less students who attended the government funded schools. It cannot be more teachers because till now during recession, jobs were cut down.

We don't know what was the scenario during recession last time. Perhaps the demography was such that there were fewer kids leading to higher student-teacher ratios. Perhaps there were more teachers in the system and with declining demand, the number of teachers in the system has decreased which has increased the student-teacher ratio. There are n number of possibilities. Nothing is given that links last recession with the current scenario. What you are given is the current scenario and what you can expect in the next recession. So choice (A) is out of scope.

SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Choice B in my opinion is not as solid because it doesn't automatically imply that the students who were studying at private schools during stronger economy would join the government funded schools during recession because as mentioned above there are two factors that weigh in students decision, being quality of education and cost of education. So if the private schools were markedly higher in the quality of education that they offer we would see little number of students moving to government funded schools during recession.

So to me choice A appears to strengthen the argument better.

Again, quality of education is out of scope here. There are a dozen other factors parents weigh while selecting a school but none of the others are relevant to our argument. The argument only deals with cost and student-teacher ratio. Option B very clearly states that during strong times, many kids are attending private schools which charge substantial fees. Also, since it is given that jobs are harder to come by in recession, it is possible that some people might be forced to use free-of-cost govt schools.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17853 [0], given: 235

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 623

Kudos [?]: 535 [0], given: 16

Location: India
Re: GWD #16 V11 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2013, 00:06
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
I disagree.

SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Let us analyze choice A. It says that the current student-teacher ratio is higher now at government funded schools than it was during the last recession. Let us assume the current period to be a period of stronger economy. A higher student-teacher ratio during the current period means that during the last recession period there were less students who attended the government funded schools. It cannot be more teachers because till now during recession, jobs were cut down.

We don't know what was the scenario during recession last time. Perhaps the demography was such that there were fewer kids leading to higher student-teacher ratios. Perhaps there were more teachers in the system and with declining demand, the number of teachers in the system has decreased which has increased the student-teacher ratio. There are n number of possibilities. Nothing is given that links last recession with the current scenario. What you are given is the current scenario and what you can expect in the next recession. So choice (A) is out of scope.

SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Choice B in my opinion is not as solid because it doesn't automatically imply that the students who were studying at private schools during stronger economy would join the government funded schools during recession because as mentioned above there are two factors that weigh in students decision, being quality of education and cost of education. So if the private schools were markedly higher in the quality of education that they offer we would see little number of students moving to government funded schools during recession.

So to me choice A appears to strengthen the argument better.

Again, quality of education is out of scope here. There are a dozen other factors parents weigh while selecting a school but none of the others are relevant to our argument. The argument only deals with cost and student-teacher ratio. Option B very clearly states that during strong times, many kids are attending private schools which charge substantial fees. Also, since it is given that jobs are harder to come by in recession, it is possible that some people might be forced to use free-of-cost govt schools.

Let us first agree that during recession the number of teachers is lower than during a period of strong economy. The argument is based on that fact. Let us also use the common sense logic that the number of kids going to school is not going to vary significantly from one year to another within a short period. So considering all the n number of possibilities we can reasonably reach the above conclusion. So there is the cost factor and n number of other factors. If during recession the n number of factors weighed more or equally in favor of the private schools as in a period of strong economy, then the cost factor is being overlooked and therefore there are enough well to do parents who can send their kids to private schools during recession. Your argument that since parents would be out of job and so don't send their kids to private schools is not strong. This is because during previous recession also as we can infer, the parents did not change their kids from private schools to government funded schools because of cost. So if the number of kids going to private schools is 25% during strong economy it was also about the same during the recession.

While choice B considers only the cost factor, choice A implies that the other factors are important and along with the cost factor will strengthen the argument even strongly. In fact in the case of choice B, cost factor may be pitted against the other factors.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com/regularcourse.php

Standardized Approaches

Kudos [?]: 535 [0], given: 16

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2355

Kudos [?]: 9294 [0], given: 342

Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2013, 01:35
eybrj2 wrote:
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.

B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.

C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia’s government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.

D. Teachers in Vargonia’s government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.

E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded.

Hi,

As I see, already there are two experts active on this thread, I am not sure if I am going to add much value to the discussion. But let me try.

When I read this passage, one thing that struck me was the underlined part: "However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools". So, the conclusion is not talking about the next recession or one particular recession; it is about all recessions to come. Therefore, any option statement which only talks about just one or two recessions is not going to support the general trend predicted in the conclusion.

The correct option has to give pointers to all the future recessions or provide a trend that has been generally followed in the past, which we can assume to hold in the future also.

Eliminate options A, C and E right away

Therefore, when I went to the options with this understanding in mind, I could easily eliminate options A, C and E since these three options just compare two economic recession - I am looking for a trend.

Option D is so out of context.

Option B is what I am looking for. It talks about "recent periods", not one period but a number of periods. So, it is talking about a trend. Now, what is the trend? The trend is that in strong economic conditions, a large number of children study in private schools, which charge "substantial fees". So, we can easily assume that the number of students at public schools will not decrease; it should rather increase. Therefore, the job availability of teaching jobs will likely not reduce.

Hope this helps

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

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

Kudos [?]: 9294 [0], given: 342

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 623

Kudos [?]: 535 [0], given: 16

Location: India
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2013, 02:14
egmat wrote:
eybrj2 wrote:
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.

B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.

C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia’s government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.

D. Teachers in Vargonia’s government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.

E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded.

Hi,

As I see, already there are two experts active on this thread, I am not sure if I am going to add much value to the discussion. But let me try.

When I read this passage, one thing that struck me was the underlined part: "However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools". So, the conclusion is not talking about the next recession or one particular recession; it is about all recessions to come. Therefore, any option statement which only talks about just one or two recessions is not going to support the general trend predicted in the conclusion.

The correct option has to give pointers to all the future recessions or provide a trend that has been generally followed in the past, which we can assume to hold in the future also.

Eliminate options A, C and E right away

Therefore, when I went to the options with this understanding in mind, I could easily eliminate options A, C and E since these three options just compare two economic recession - I am looking for a trend.

Option D is so out of context.

Option B is what I am looking for. It talks about "recent periods", not one period but a number of periods. So, it is talking about a trend. Now, what is the trend? The trend is that in strong economic conditions, a large number of children study in private schools, which charge "substantial fees". So, we can easily assume that the number of students at public schools will not decrease; it should rather increase. Therefore, the job availability of teaching jobs will likely not reduce.

Hope this helps

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

Something that strengthens the argument should add useful additional knowledge other than what is common sense knowledge. In my opinion choice B offers no useful additional information because if there are private schools some parents would indeed send their children to the private schools and cost is indeed generally a factor. This is common sense knowledge just as the knowledge that public schools charge lower fees.

Anyway the fact that 25% of students in recent periods have always attended private schools during strong economic period may mean two things:

1) They never left the private school during recession
2) All who left during recession to the public schools returned to the private schools after recession.

In the second case, cost factor would have weighed in. In the first case, factors other than cost would have weighed in. How can you decide which one is stronger?
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com/regularcourse.php

Standardized Approaches

Kudos [?]: 535 [0], given: 16

e-GMAT Representative
Joined: 02 Nov 2011
Posts: 2355

Kudos [?]: 9294 [0], given: 342

Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2013, 02:58
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Something that strengthens the argument should add useful additional knowledge other than what is common sense knowledge. In my opinion choice B offers no useful additional information because if there are private schools some parents would indeed send their children to the private schools and cost is indeed generally a factor. This is common sense knowledge just as the knowledge that public schools charge lower fees.

I think here we are moving in an area where a number of students have doubts. The area is "what is common sense knowledge". Well, I am not going into what is considered common sense in GMAT, generally; however, within the given context option B is certainly not a common sense knowledge.

Just because there are some private schools, would some parents always send their children to them, even if:
- the public education is completely free
-private schools charge substantial fees
-recession is going on

And again option B doesn't only say 'some' children go to private schools, it says "25%" of the children, which means 1 in every 4 children, which is substantial given that public education is free and private schools charge "substantial fees".

Can we consider above information as common sense? I think not.

SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Anyway the fact that 25% of students in recent periods have always attended private schools during strong economic period may mean two things:

1) They never left the private school during recession
2) All who left during recession to the public schools returned to the private schools after recession.

In the second case, cost factor would have weighed in. In the first case, factors other than cost would have weighed in. How can you decide which one is stronger?

I would say a case between these two extremes is more probable i.e. where some students move from private schools to govt. funded schools. You are right that it's hard to support one case over the other. The most probable case would be somewhere in between. This case would strengthen our conclusion - because for more students, more teachers would need to be hired.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev
_________________

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

Kudos [?]: 9294 [0], given: 342

Director
Joined: 17 Dec 2012
Posts: 623

Kudos [?]: 535 [0], given: 16

Location: India
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

01 Feb 2013, 06:00
egmat wrote:
SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Something that strengthens the argument should add useful additional knowledge other than what is common sense knowledge. In my opinion choice B offers no useful additional information because if there are private schools some parents would indeed send their children to the private schools and cost is indeed generally a factor. This is common sense knowledge just as the knowledge that public schools charge lower fees.

I think here we are moving in an area where a number of students have doubts. The area is "what is common sense knowledge". Well, I am not going into what is considered common sense in GMAT, generally; however, within the given context option B is certainly not a common sense knowledge.

Just because there are some private schools, would some parents always send their children to them, even if:
- the public education is completely free
-private schools charge substantial fees
-recession is going on

And again option B doesn't only say 'some' children go to private schools, it says "25%" of the children, which means 1 in every 4 children, which is substantial given that public education is free and private schools charge "substantial fees".

Can we consider above information as common sense? I think not.

SravnaTestPrep wrote:
Anyway the fact that 25% of students in recent periods have always attended private schools during strong economic period may mean two things:

1) They never left the private school during recession
2) All who left during recession to the public schools returned to the private schools after recession.

In the second case, cost factor would have weighed in. In the first case, factors other than cost would have weighed in. How can you decide which one is stronger?

I would say a case between these two extremes is more probable i.e. where some students move from private schools to govt. funded schools. You are right that it's hard to support one case over the other. The most probable case would be somewhere in between. This case would strengthen our conclusion - because for more students, more teachers would need to be hired.

Hope this helps.

Thanks,
Chiranjeev

Dear Chiranjeev,

The reality is that parents do send their kids to private schools. We do know that private schools charge substantial fees. Also we are talking about a period when the economy is strong.

Regarding choice B, I mentioned the two scenarios because they fit the information given in that choice that each year about the same percentage of students go to the private schools during a strong economy. You cannot choose something in between because that would not be reflecting the truth given in choice B.

As a matter of fact the first case I mentioned in my previous post would actually weaken the argument.
_________________

Srinivasan Vaidyaraman
Sravna
http://www.sravnatestprep.com/regularcourse.php

Standardized Approaches

Kudos [?]: 535 [0], given: 16

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

20 Mar 2014, 05:23
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.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Current Student
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 956

Kudos [?]: 1901 [0], given: 229

Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Apr 2014, 11:28
OA is debatable and vulnerable to many assumptions.

We are just assuming that in recession because of financial burden people will move their kids to govt schools... and if I add further one more assumption that most of the poor parents wont be able to afford to send their kids to even govt schools during recession then in that case this student-teacher ratio may come down... overall we are just trying to fit option B in the shoe of OA..
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Kudos [?]: 1901 [0], given: 229

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 7745

Kudos [?]: 17853 [0], given: 235

Location: Pune, India
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Apr 2014, 21:43
PiyushK wrote:
OA is debatable and vulnerable to many assumptions.

We are just assuming that in recession because of financial burden people will move their kids to govt schools... and if I add further one more assumption that most of the poor parents wont be able to afford to send their kids to even govt schools during recession then in that case this student-teacher ratio may come down... overall we are just trying to fit option B in the shoe of OA..

Not at all! OA is absolutely not debatable because it is an official question and the OA is official. This means it is useless to scorn at the OA. Instead, try to understand the logic they are giving since you will need to use it in GMAT questions.

We are not "assuming" that in recession people will move their kids to govt schools.

Legal requirement introduced just now: All kids have to receive free education in govt schools (irrespective of economy) and student teacher ratio has to be maintained.
It's a legal requirement brought in just now. Chances are that more students (who were not in school before) will enter govt schools since its required now. Even if all kids were already in school, the availability of teaching jobs will probably stay the same and not reduce.

Hence we conclude that: any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools.

Now how do we strengthen it further?

We are saying that currently economy is strong and 25% kids are in private schools which charge high fees. So it is highly unlikely that in recession, more people will shift their wards to private schools which charge high fees. It is far more likely that in recession, even some of these 25% kids might get shifted to free govt schools if parents feel that they are unable to afford the private school. Hence it is unlikely that many students from govt schools will shift to private schools (which are pricey) in time of recession and hence it is unlikely that teaching jobs will reduce.

This further strengthens our conclusion. Note that we don't have to "prove it beyond doubt". We just have to increase the probability.
_________________

Karishma
Veritas Prep | GMAT Instructor
My Blog

Get started with Veritas Prep GMAT On Demand for \$199

Veritas Prep Reviews

Kudos [?]: 17853 [0], given: 235

Current Student
Status: Everyone is a leader. Just stop listening to others.
Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 956

Kudos [?]: 1901 [0], given: 229

Location: India
GPA: 3.51
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

08 Apr 2014, 00:18
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
PiyushK wrote:
OA is debatable and vulnerable to many assumptions.

We are just assuming that in recession because of financial burden people will move their kids to govt schools... and if I add further one more assumption that most of the poor parents wont be able to afford to send their kids to even govt schools during recession then in that case this student-teacher ratio may come down... overall we are just trying to fit option B in the shoe of OA..

Not at all! OA is absolutely not debatable because it is an official question and the OA is official. This means it is useless to scorn at the OA. Instead, try to understand the logic they are giving since you will need to use it in GMAT questions.

We are not "assuming" that in recession people will move their kids to govt schools.

Legal requirement introduced just now: All kids have to receive free education in govt schools (irrespective of economy) and student teacher ratio has to be maintained.
It's a legal requirement brought in just now. Chances are that more students (who were not in school before) will enter govt schools since its required now. Even if all kids were already in school, the availability of teaching jobs will probably stay the same and not reduce.

Hence we conclude that: any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools.

Now how do we strengthen it further?

We are saying that currently economy is strong and 25% kids are in private schools which charge high fees. So it is highly unlikely that in recession, more people will shift their wards to private schools which charge high fees. It is far more likely that in recession, even some of these 25% kids might get shifted to free govt schools if parents feel that they are unable to afford the private school. Hence it is unlikely that many students from govt schools will shift to private schools (which are pricey) in time of recession and hence it is unlikely that teaching jobs will reduce.

This further strengthens our conclusion. Note that we don't have to "prove it beyond doubt". We just have to increase the probability.

Thanks Karishma. Now I got it. In my previous analysis I didn't consider that "Legal requirement part."
_________________

Piyush K
-----------------------
Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is to try just one more time. ― Thomas A. Edison
Don't forget to press--> Kudos
My Articles: 1. WOULD: when to use? | 2. All GMATPrep RCs (New)
Tip: Before exam a week earlier don't forget to exhaust all gmatprep problems specially for "sentence correction".

Kudos [?]: 1901 [0], given: 229

Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 272

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 46

Re: GWD #16 V11 [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2014, 03:40
VeritasPrepKarishma wrote:
eybrj2 wrote:
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.

B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.

C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia’s government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.

D. Teachers in Vargonia’s government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.

E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded.

Ok, there are a lot of words there so try to paraphrase and make sense of it in the first read itself. This is what the argument is saying:
Conclusion: A recession in the future will not hurt teaching jobs at government-funded schools.Why?
Premises:
1. Education has to be made available to all children in govt schools.
2. Student teacher ratio cannot be increased.

What will strengthen this conclusion?
Something which gives you further evidence that recession will not hurt teaching jobs at govt schools. If student-teacher ratio has to be maintained, what can lead to fewer jobs for teachers? Fewer students. So if we can establish that during recession, the number of students in govt schools will not reduce, we can establish that teaching jobs in govt schools are secure no matter the state of the economy.

(B) tells you that 25% students study in private schools which charge high fees. What do you think could happen in recession? Either nothing happens or people move their kids to govt schools. In either case, govt school teachers have a secure job. (There is actually a possibility of more demand of govt school teachers during recession.) Your argument is strengthened.

(C) tells you that more teachers are currently employed in govt schools than previously. How does it imply that their jobs are secure? If anything, it lends a shade of weakness to the argument, not strength - if there are too many teachers right now, some of them may need to leave during recession. Mind you, I am not saying that it is weakening the argument since there can be very valid reasons for extra teachers now (because education has to be made available to every child and probably the student teacher ratio required the govt schools to hire more teachers etc). Whatever the reasons, it certainly doesn't say that the job of the govt school teachers in future are more secure.

Presuming that education in pvt institute is preferred as compared to Govt institutes

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 46

Intern
Joined: 14 Jan 2013
Posts: 5

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 39

Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jun 2014, 12:48
eybrj2 wrote:
In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession because many businesses cut back operations. However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools. This is because Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

A. The current student-teacher ratio at Vargonia’s government-funded schools is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession.

B. During recent periods when the Vargonian economy has been strong, almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees.

C. Nearly 20 percent more teachers are currently employed in Vargonia’s government-funded schools than had been employed in those schools in the period before the last economic recession.

D. Teachers in Vargonia’s government-funded schools are well paid relative to teachers in most privately funded schools in Vargonia, many of which rely heavily on part-time teachers.

E. During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded.

Conclusion: If the economy in Vargonia goes to hell, then you can either be a panhandler or start learning how to become a teacher since those will be the only jobs available.

Details: The mayor of Vargonia took his head out his butt and decided it would be a good idea to offer free education instead of taxing his citizens into indentured servitude. The mayor also decided that since a free education is worthless if it's of terrible quality, he ensured that the new legal requirement enforces student teacher ratio to be not terrible.

A) Who cares? We're talking about the future, and the rates are already going to be set as is due to the requirement.

B) So let me get this straight. If there were 100 kids in Vargonia's school system, Then 25 of these richy richs went to the private system and the rest of the paupers went to the government funded system. But if Vargonia's economy goes to hell, that means everyone essentially becomes paupers. So now we have a city full of paupers and panhandlers.
But hey! wait a second! don't go for the bottle yet! If you're a teacher then that means you have a get out of jail free card! Why? Because the parents of these 25 kids that went to the private system now have the option/privlege to send their rugrats to the prestigious government funded system they chose not to in the first place for the grand total price of zero dollars (thank you new legal requirement!). That means prior, if the ratio of teachers to rugrats at the gov system was set in stone, then adding more kids to the school system will result in having to add more teachers. So not only would teacher availability remain the same, but also new jobs would be created.

C) In other news, my dog had a bowel movement, just as relevant as this answer choice.
D) Please refer to (C)
All this means is that there will be more competition for teaching jobs when the economy goes to hell because the pay is good enough to stop you from moon lighting.
E) Please Refer to (C)
Also more than anything this could potentially be a weakens statement. If during the last recession they closed schools then it would reduce the student population, and since the student/teacher ratio remains constant, then it wouldn't be far fetched to say that they would have to get rid of the excess teachers to keep the same rate.

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 39

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

18 Jun 2015, 21:00
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.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10130

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Jul 2016, 00:29
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.

Kudos [?]: 270 [0], given: 0

Manager
Joined: 04 Apr 2015
Posts: 133

Kudos [?]: -24 [0], given: 47

Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 Oct 2016, 08:35
please tell me where i am thinking wrong
student : teacher ratio = 5 (20 students 4 teacher) in current scenario and the exceed limit is say 6
so at any cost i cannot reduce the denominator so no teaching jobs will be same
no if recession occurs we are at current scenario if there is an influx of students so the ratio will increase so we need to balance the ratio by adding more teachers there by creating more jobs

now option A says we are at highest student ratio then at other times means we are near the limit so its a strengthener

Kudos [?]: -24 [0], given: 47

Board of Directors
Status: Aiming MBA
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 2772

Kudos [?]: 919 [0], given: 67

Location: India
GPA: 3.65
WE: Information Technology (Health Care)
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Mar 2017, 09:18
oishik2910 wrote:
please tell me where i am thinking wrong
student : teacher ratio = 5 (20 students 4 teacher) in current scenario and the exceed limit is say 6
so at any cost i cannot reduce the denominator so no teaching jobs will be same
no if recession occurs we are at current scenario if there is an influx of students so the ratio will increase so we need to balance the ratio by adding more teachers there by creating more jobs

now option A says we are at highest student ratio then at other times means we are near the limit so its a strengthener

Ok. So you tried to change the requirement. We are given that "As per legal requirement, the current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded. ". It means if it 5 at this moment, it should not increase from 5. So, as per the scenario you have taken, it is actually increasing to 6 from 5, an invalid/contradictory situation.

Now, as per the question if we assume that there will be an increase in the number of students, we must have a corresponding increase in teachers such that the ratio still remains 5.

Hence, option B clearly says that Students are increasing and this statement supports the conclusion that there will be no recession for teaching jobs.

I hope that makes sense.
_________________

How I improved from V21 to V40! ?

Kudos [?]: 919 [0], given: 67

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Posts: 318

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 88

Location: India
Concentration: Finance, International Business
Schools: IIMB
GMAT 1: 550 Q42 V28
GPA: 3.96
WE: Human Resources (Retail Banking)
Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

28 Mar 2017, 23:40
hello expert can you explain , how do we eliminate option D

Kudos [?]: 25 [0], given: 88

Intern
Joined: 22 Sep 2014
Posts: 18

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Mar 2017, 23:24
the argument is : However, any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools

Premise : Vargonia has just introduced a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available, free of charge, to all Vargonian children regardless of the state of the economy, and that current student-teacher ratios not be exceeded.

because of the premise , in order to make the argument valid ,during recession, we just need to have same number of students as before (or more )to have same number of teachers (or more) ...since the ratio of student to teacher will stay same ..so there will be more teaching jobs if the school get more students than before . Choice B makes this possible ..when recession comes ,those 25% of students might need to go back to the funded school...even if not ..we will still have the same number of students and teachers ...logically, at least some of the 25% will go back to funded school . More teachers will be needed at the funded school

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

Re: In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic   [#permalink] 29 Mar 2017, 23:24

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 39 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

# In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic

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

 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®.