In general, jobs are harder to get in times of economic recession : Critical Reasoning Practice Questions

Namangupta1997

Joined: 23 Oct 2020

Last visit: 05 Apr 2025

Posts: 146

Own Kudos:

6

Given Kudos: 63

GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V38 Verified score

Posts: 146

Kudos: 6

13 Jun 2022, 11:36

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hi KarishmaB

For option B, can we say that in the worst case scenario, when even if the 25% private school students do not come to govt. funded schools, the number of students presently studying in govt. funded schools won't change? If the number of students doesn't change, or as here we can say since that the number of students in govt. schools has not decreased , there would not be at least a decrement in the teaching jobs. From here on, any addition in students would go on to strengthen the argument further.

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 19 Jun 2025

Posts: 16,058

Own Kudos:

73,783

[1]

Given Kudos: 472

Location: Pune, India

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,058

Kudos: 73,783

[1]

13 Jun 2022, 20:22

1

Kudos

Bookmarks

Namangupta1997

Hi KarishmaB

For option B, can we say that in the worst case scenario, when even if the 25% private school students do not come to govt. funded schools, the number of students presently studying in govt. funded schools won't change? If the number of students doesn't change, or as here we can say since that the number of students in govt. schools has not decreased , there would not be at least a decrement in the teaching jobs. From here on, any addition in students would go on to strengthen the argument further.

Yes, absolutely. The conclusion says that number of teaching jobs at govt. schools will not decrease. Since govt schools provide free education, there is no reason why people will withdraw their kids from school during recession. Even if during recession they do withdraw some kids from school so that they can help out with say family business (to save labour costs etc.), option (B) gives us a buffer. 25% kids are in private school and during recession, some may shift to govt. school. So number of kids in govt. schools is certainly not expected to go down. It strengthens our argument.

freemanfanmao

Joined: 17 Oct 2022

Last visit: 10 Mar 2023

Posts: 11

Own Kudos:

3

Given Kudos: 5

Posts: 11

Kudos: 3

01 Nov 2022, 22:30

Kudos

Bookmarks

GMATNinja CrackverbalGMAT KarishmaB abhimahna
egmat
mikemcgarry
Experts,

I'm not seeing why B is better than A.

Both were talking about past events, A - most recent recession, B - recent periods when economy has been strong.
The conclusion is saying "job availability will not reduce in future recession" (from current state), which we don't know what the current state is. If we eliminate A because of what happened in the past has nothing to do with the future, then why aren't we eliminating B for the same reason? IMO A is even slightly better, since it's at least talking about recession. Please advise.

Thanks.

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Last visit: 19 Jun 2025

Posts: 16,058

Own Kudos:

73,783

Given Kudos: 472

Location: Pune, India

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 16,058

Kudos: 73,783

01 Nov 2022, 23:45

Kudos

Bookmarks

freemanfanmao

GMATNinja CrackverbalGMAT KarishmaB abhimahna
egmat
mikemcgarry
Experts,

I'm not seeing why B is better than A.

Both were talking about past events, A - most recent recession, B - recent periods when economy has been strong.
The conclusion is saying "job availability will not reduce in future recession" (from current state), which we don't know what the current state is. If we eliminate A because of what happened in the past has nothing to do with the future, then why aren't we eliminating B for the same reason? IMO A is even slightly better, since it's at least talking about recession. Please advise.

Thanks.

We eliminate (A) because the argument tells us :

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.

The current ratio must be maintained in the future. Even if it was lower in the past, it doesn't matter. Going forward it must be maintained. So the same ratio as current will be maintained in any future recession.

egmat

e-GMAT Representative

Joined: 02 Nov 2011

Last visit: 19 Jun 2025

Posts: 4,597

Own Kudos:

32,278

Given Kudos: 683

GMAT Date: 08-19-2020

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 4,597

Kudos: 32,278

02 Nov 2022, 00:38

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hey freemanfanmao

Happy to help.

The trick lies in understanding the conclusion of this argument.

Conclusion: Any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools.

Now, we're looking for an additional reason to believe that the currently available teaching jobs will not reduce, given that

a. There's a legal requirement that education in government-funded schools be available regardless of the state of the economy.
b. This government education must be free of charge.
c. The current student-teacher ratio must not be exceeded.

Choice 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.

So, what will happen when recession hits?
a. Parents will probably not be able to afford these expensive privately funded schools.
b. These schools would probably shut down, or at least cut costs by firing teachers.
c. These parents will probably send their children to government schools where the education is free of charge. This way their children's education won't get interrupted.
d. The number of students in government-funded schools will increase, disturbing (increasing) the student-teacher ration.
e. Government-funded schools would be forced to recruit more teachers as per the norms.
f. The teachers who lost their jobs at privately-funded schools will get an opportunity to work at government-funded schools.
g. Hence, the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools will not reduce.

This is how choice B strengthens (even if it does not prove completely) the argument.

Choice 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.

All choice A tells us is that the current student-teacher ratio is higher than the ratio during the last recession. That's it. It doesn't give us any new reason why the availability of teaching jobs won't reduce during the next recession. So, choice A has no impact on the argument whatsoever.

I hope this helps improve your understanding.

Happy Learning!

Abhishek

freemanfanmao

Joined: 17 Oct 2022

Last visit: 10 Mar 2023

Posts: 11

Own Kudos:

3

Given Kudos: 5

Posts: 11

Kudos: 3

02 Nov 2022, 10:16

Kudos

Bookmarks

egmat,
Thanks for the quick response. I completely understand and agree with all the points you made regarding choice B, and how they could all possibly strengthen the conclusion, but all of them rely on assumptions. You said that choice A doesn't give us any new reason why the availability of teaching jobs won't reduce during the next recession, which I feel like the same could be said about B. The conclusion implicitly states that future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools from current state of economy. My point being that we don't know what the current state of economy is, why would past periods of strong economy affect what will happen between current state and the next recession? I just think choice B is just as irrelevant as A. For B to work we need to make a number of assumptions, if similar assumptions can be made for A I could also make A work. This is why I don't understand that B is the right answer.

freemanfanmao

Joined: 17 Oct 2022

Last visit: 10 Mar 2023

Posts: 11

Own Kudos:

3

Given Kudos: 5

Posts: 11

Kudos: 3

02 Nov 2022, 11:03

Kudos

Bookmarks

KarishmaB

We eliminate (A) because the argument tells us :

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.

The current ratio must be maintained in the future. Even if it was lower in the past, it doesn't matter. Going forward it must be maintained. So the same ratio as current will be maintained in any future recession.

Thank you for the quick response. I don't understand how (B) infers that the current ratio will not be exceeded, without the need of making assumptions. What we need is something that shows, between V's current state of economy and the next recession, the availability of teachers in public schools will not decrease. If we are allowed to make assumptions like we did in (B), I could make an argument, even if (B) is true, that if V is currently in an economic state worse than a recession (a rather extreme case but just for the sake of the argument), students in public school could be forced to drop out to help their parents in farming, leading to layoffs of the teachers, thereby reducing the availability of teaching jobs. So to me, if we are allowed to make assumptions, I can make cases for (B) where both strengthening and weakening are possible. (B) by itself seems just as irrelevant as (A), since neither addresses what happens between the current state and the next recession, both were just talking about past events. Please advise.

Thanks.

egmat

e-GMAT Representative

Joined: 02 Nov 2011

Last visit: 19 Jun 2025

Posts: 4,597

Own Kudos:

32,278

Given Kudos: 683

GMAT Date: 08-19-2020

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 4,597

Kudos: 32,278

18 Nov 2022, 07:59

Kudos

Bookmarks

freemanfanmao

egmat,
Thanks for the quick response. I completely understand and agree with all the points you made regarding choice B, and how they could all possibly strengthen the conclusion, but all of them rely on assumptions. You said that choice A doesn't give us any new reason why the availability of teaching jobs won't reduce during the next recession, which I feel like the same could be said about B. The conclusion implicitly states that future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools from current state of economy. My point being that we don't know what the current state of economy is, why would past periods of strong economy affect what will happen between current state and the next recession? I just think choice B is just as irrelevant as A. For B to work we need to make a number of assumptions, if similar assumptions can be made for A I could also make A work. This is why I don't understand that B is the right answer.

Hey freemanfanmao

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Let's look, one last time, at choices A and B:

is higher than it was during the most recent period of economic recession

Choice A says that the current student-teacher ratio is higher than it was during the last recession. If we put numbers to it, we get:

First of all, this fact is completely irrelevant to our argument, since our argument is limited to current student-teacher ratio and that during the next recession. Second, this choice says that there are more students for every teacher now than there were during the last recession. This means that during the earlier recession there was probably no free education promised for all, otherwise the student-teacher ratio would have been more during times of recession than during economic stability. So, this choice goes completely against the logic of our argument.

Choice B, on the other hand, provides us new and supporting information. It tells us that currently almost 25 percent of Vargonian children have attended privately funded schools, many of which charge substantial fees. This is the information that strengthens the argument, because, when you add this to the given premise, we can conclude that:

now

current

probably

(Note: This a chain of causality. This is not a list of assumptions.)

If we negate the information given to us in choice B, that is if we somehow prove that private schools do not have a significant population of students, then we will weaken this argument.

This is why choice B does indeed add support to the argument.

I hope you see it now.

Happy Learning!

Abhishek

Raman109

Joined: 17 Aug 2009

Last visit: 16 Jun 2025

Posts: 812

Own Kudos:

138

Given Kudos: 33

Products:

Posts: 812

Kudos: 138

22 Sep 2023, 08:09

Kudos

Bookmarks

The scope of the argument is defined by the impact on the conclusion (any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools). Any new information that does not impact the conclusion (any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools) is out of scope. In this case, the scope of the argument is any new information that will support the conclusion.
As Karishma pointed out - How the teaching jobs will not be reduced? Or if we ask the other way round - how the teaching jobs will be reduced? If the number of students goes down. So, How the teaching jobs will not be reduced? By ensuring that the number of students doesn't go down.

(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. - The supporting premise to the conclusion says that the "current student-teacher ratio" is not to be exceeded, so we either maintain it or reduce it. So if it's higher, we'll maintain or reduce it. But that doesn't impact the conclusion that any future recessions in Vargonia will probably not reduce the availability of teaching jobs at government-funded schools - Out of scope.

(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. - It's new information (and if it's new information, it's not out of scope) that impacts the scope. This 25% may increase the number of students in govt schools in future recessions, and if that happens to comply with the legal requirement, the schools need to hire more teachers.

(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. At best, it weakens

(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. - Out of scope (no impact on the conclusion)

(E) During the last economic recession in Vargonia, the government permanently closed a number of the schools that it had funded - If they permanently closed the schools, that would make it harder to find jobs and not easier. Even if the students were consolidated into fewer schools, increasing the number of students in some schools, then the teachers who lost jobs would apply and be considered first - but that's not even applicable as the requirements came recently. In the past, they may have just managed with fewer teachers to minimize the costs. Will the government repeat the same in the future? We don't know. Is there anything in the argument that states that? No. This choice is out of scope.

rmahe11

Joined: 13 Oct 2023

Last visit: 17 Jun 2025

Posts: 115

Own Kudos:

22

Given Kudos: 99

Posts: 115

Kudos: 22

03 Jul 2024, 06:20

Kudos

Bookmarks

KarishmaB

eybrj2

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.

(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.

Irrelevant. The point is that from now on, the current student-teacher ratio cannot be exceeded. So, a future recession will not see an increase in the ratio. What happened from last recession till today is irrelevant.  

(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.

This 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) 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.

This 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.

(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.   

This will impact how many people will be interested in picking the government funded school teaching jobs. It does not impact how many such jobs will be available.   

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

Again, last recession is irrelevant. We need to talk about future recession.  

Answer (B)

Discussion on Strengthen Questions:
https://youtu.be/mB8bm_a4GNk

Shifting to a privately funded school during non recession how is it strengthening the argument . How can we say that it wont reduce the no of teacher jobs in government funded schools. Infact, if push comes to shove cost there is possibility students wont go to government schools and can study at home ? I am not getting a strong indication of why B should be selected

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

Prep Toolkit

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning Practice Questions Questions

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

Prep Toolkit

My Rewards