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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
The Competition Continues - Game of Timers is a team-based competition based on solving GMAT questions to win epic prizes! Starting July 1st, compete to win prep materials while studying for GMAT! Registration is Open! Ends July 26th
In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 24 Sep 2018, 08:40
5
29
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
15% (low)
Question Stats:
78% (01:23) correct 22% (01:54) wrong based on 1328 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipment in order to save money. However, many workers who lose their jobs to automation will need government assistance to survive, and the same corporations that are laying people off will eventually pay for that assistance through increased taxes and unemployment insurance payments.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the author's argument?
(A) Many workers who have already lost their jobs to automation have been unable to find new jobs.
(B) Many corporations that have failed to automate have seen their profits decline.
(C) Taxes and unemployment insurance are paid also by corporations that are not automating.
(D) Most of the new jobs created by automation pay less than the jobs eliminated by automation did.
(E) The initial investment in machinery for automation is often greater than the short-term savings in labor costs.
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
31 Aug 2011, 07:18
12
7
DeeptiM wrote:
In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipment in order to save money. However, many workers who lose their jobs to automation will need government assistance to survive, and the same corporations that are laying people off will eventually pay for that assistance through increased taxes and unemployment insurance payments.
Author's Argument: Automation may not result in reduced expenses in the corporations; on the contrary, laying-off workers may adversely affect them because they will have to pay more in taxes and for unemployment insurance claims.
Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the author's argument?
A. Many workers who have already lost their jobs to automation have been unable to find new jobs. As author warned, the corporations are indeed bearing the monetary responsibilities for cutting jobs as the people they laid-off are jobless for extended period. Correct.
B. Many corporations that have failed to automate have seen their profits decline. Weakens. Opposing author's calculated skepticism with automation, corporations that employed it actually saved their own skin.
C. Taxes and unemployment insurance are paid also by corporations that are not automating. Corporations Counter-argument: So what Mr. Author, what are we to lose. Automation or no automation, we're anyway to bear the burden of both the things you just mentioned. We'll go ahead with our plan anyway; thanks for the heads-up though.
D. Most of the new jobs created by automation pay less than the jobs eliminated by automation did. Automation were employed for some reasons and this is one among those. Automation did bring down the expenses that the corporations had been paying off as salaries. Weakens.
E. The initial investment in machinery for automation is often greater than the short-term savings in labor costs. Corporations may be seeking long-term benefits. This is out of scope.
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
11 Nov 2011, 10:29
3
Hi
Option B talks about profits for corporations that have failed to automate. However, clearly the argument mentions only those corporations wherein automation is under way. Also, the argument never mentions profit as an aspect and is just concerned with people losing their jobs to automation.
Option A clearly strengthens the argument by eliminating the possibility that the workers who are losing jobs to automation might find new jobs without any problems. If it were the case, then the argument might be weakened.
Hope this helps.
Cheers!
_________________
MBA Candidate 2015 | Georgetown University McDonough School of Business
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
11 Nov 2011, 11:40
1
Author's Argument: Companies eventually need to pay more tax. Why: If unemployment increases, govt will increase taxes to pay off unemployement.
Hence anything that points to increase in unemployment increase will be a right answer.
Why not B - There is no mention of profit in the argument. Hence we cannot relate profit to taxes and also, the author is only concerned about the companies that are moving to automation and nothing about the companies that are not doing so. Option B is irrelevant.
_________________
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
11 Nov 2011, 16:38
Answer A tells us that the workers won't be able to find new jobs easily hence corporations won't have to pay for their unemployment. B is irrelevent; the passage is about corporations who have automated.
_________________
Aim for the sky! (800 in this case) If you like my post, please give me Kudos
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Nov 2011, 01:13
I do not read carefully but, I easily find the 4 remain wrong answer after A.
In answer choice B, which stated that "Many corporations that have failed to automate have seen their profits decline". This sentence is neutral, and this is must be true choice from the premise of argument. Remember, weaken answer choice have to go before conclusion, not after the conclusion. I always lazily to explain too much (the GMAT test also do not need you have to explain beside clicking answer choice, right :D).
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
27 Dec 2011, 23:37
1
A is the clear answer here. Profits mentioned in B are irrelevant to the conclusion. The conclusion is strengthened because A states that as these employees are unable to find new jobs, they are unemployed. The premise states that the companies that fire these employees have to take care of these employees through unemployment insurance payments. That is why A strengthens the conclusion.
_________________
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
17 Jan 2012, 18:17
fluke wrote:
A. Many workers who have already lost their jobs to automation have been unable to find new jobs. As author warned, the corporations are indeed bearing the monetary responsibilities for cutting jobs as the people they laid-off are jobless for extended period. Correct.
Ans: "A"
good reasoning. First statement says companies are SAVING money. Second statement contradicts with that by introducing the word 'However' with the fact that companies have to pay money for the unemployment they created. With this, A is the only one that fits the bill.
_________________
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Oct 2014, 05:14
why it cannot be C. its says that Taxes and unemployment insurance are paid also by corporations that are not automating. so if those corporations which are not automated pays unemployment insurance then it is definite that corporations which are automated will definitely pay unemployment insurance
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
07 Oct 2014, 00:49
3
Hi Lakshey,
Premise: employees are being replaced by automated equipment in order to save money. Premise : many workers who lose their jobs to automation will need government assistance to survive, Conclusion: the same corporations that are laying people off will eventually pay for that assistance through increased taxes and unemployment insurance payments.
lakshey1993 wrote:
C. Taxes and unemployment insurance are paid also by corporations that are not automating. why it cannot be C. its says that Taxes and unemployment insurance are paid also by corporations that are not automating. so if those corporations which are not automated pays unemployment insurance then it is definite that corporations which are automated will definitely pay unemployment insurance
This is actually a weakener because if every corporation(automated or not) will pay more taxes then why not to automate and make some profit by laying off employees !
Press Kudos if it helps _________________
Success has been and continues to be defined as Getting up one more time than you have been knocked down.
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
03 Feb 2015, 07:43
The argument claims that the increase of layoffs will directly result in increased taxes for government assistance. The assumption is that those being laid off will not be able to find another job; if they could find another job, the number of unemployment claims would decrease. The argument is only focused on whether firms that are automating will pay more taxes for government assistance. The incorrect answers are trying to distract you.
A. Many workers who have already lost their jobs to automation have been unable to find new jobs. This is correct. If they could find another job, unemployment claims would decrease. B. Many corporations that have failed to automate have seen their profits decline. profits are not relevant C. Taxes and unemployment insurance are paid also by corporations that are not automating. firms that don't automate are not relevant D. Most of the new jobs created by automation pay less than the jobs eliminated by automation did. difference in pay is not relevant E. The initial investment in machinery for automation is often greater than the short-term savings in labor costs. return on investment is not relevant; we just want to know if these firms will pay more taxes
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
03 Feb 2015, 08:42
A- clearly strengthens the Argument. per the context of the argument the basic assumption is the no of unemployed will go up ( it implies Job market is tough & govt support will be solicited in such a scenario) also
_________________
Affiliations: National Institute of Technology, Durgapur
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 435
Location: United States (DE)
GPA: 3.32
WE: Information Technology (Health Care)
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Feb 2015, 01:47
The argument will only hold if we can show that employees who lost their job are continuously being provided support by the government for a long period of time. In case the employees were to find another job then the argument would break. So A clearly says they din't get another job
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
18 Feb 2015, 20:55
A for me.. If people who lost their jobs to automation were not able to find new jobs, then surely the unemployment rate will grow. This inturn will lead to the "same corporations that are laying people off will eventually pay for that assistance through increased taxes and unemployment insurance payments" of premises.
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Feb 2015, 06:12
I have a question. Is option A an assumption also? Because going by "negation technique" for assumptions, if option A is negated, in other words, if many workers who have lost their jobs to automation are able to find new jobs, then the conclusion of the argument no longer is valid.
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
19 Feb 2015, 20:39
3
damyanti wrote:
I have a question. Is option A an assumption also? Because going by "negation technique" for assumptions, if option A is negated, in other words, if many workers who have lost their jobs to automation are able to find new jobs, then the conclusion of the argument no longer is valid.
Assumptions are a kind of strengtheners.
Premises that strengthen the conclusion provide data that makes the conclusion more possible. Assumptions are premises that strengthen the conclusion and in fact are necessary to make the conclusion hold.
So every assumption will strengthen the conclusion but every strengthener is not an assumption.
_________________
Karishma Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
Learn more about how Veritas Prep can help you achieve a great GMAT score by checking out their GMAT Prep Options >
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
21 Feb 2015, 03:29
option A gives credence to the belief that going by the general belief the companies would eventually have to do what the argument has predicted so that the answer.
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
13 Apr 2016, 14:06
Chembeti wrote:
fluke wrote:
A. Many workers who have already lost their jobs to automation have been unable to find new jobs. As author warned, the corporations are indeed bearing the monetary responsibilities for cutting jobs as the people they laid-off are jobless for extended period. Correct.
Ans: "A"
good reasoning. First statement says companies are SAVING money. Second statement contradicts with that by introducing the word 'However' with the fact that companies have to pay money for the unemployment they created. With this, A is the only one that fits the bill.
I am not sure i follow the reasoning. Please elaborate a bit
To me option A seemed like this: If people laid off are unable to find new jobs, it is most likely because companies are not willing to hire people as they found a better and more profitable alternative in automation, and are more willing to do so.
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
28 Jan 2017, 05:19
Hi All,
Sorry in advance if my question seems stupid :
While reading, I had the impression that there were no conclusion, only a bunch of statements. Since the only affirmative sentence was the first, I thought that the conclusion was the following : Replacement of workers ==> Savings I thought that the second part However it is possible that actually it costs money was only an hypothesis, a possibility.
Then my question is the following : How can you consider a probabability, without any affirmation (introduced by however), a conclusion ?
Re: In many corporations, employees are being replaced by automated equipm
[#permalink]
Show Tags
11 Feb 2017, 11:58
nickimonckom wrote:
Hi All,
Sorry in advance if my question seems stupid :
While reading, I had the impression that there were no conclusion, only a bunch of statements. Since the only affirmative sentence was the first, I thought that the conclusion was the following : Replacement of workers ==> Savings I thought that the second part However it is possible that actually it costs money was only an hypothesis, a possibility.
Then my question is the following : How can you consider a probabability, without any affirmation (introduced by however), a conclusion ?
Thanks in advance for your kind help,
Focus on whats highlighted: However,many workers who lose their jobs to automation will need government assistance to survive, and the same corporations that are laying people off will eventually pay for that assistance through increased taxes and unemployment insurance payments.
Here the author is confirming that companies will eventually have to pay for unemployment. But what if the employees who lost their jobs to automation find jobs in another company? Then the company wont have to pay for unemployment. But if the employees who lost their jobs to automation are unsuccessful in finding a job? Then these companies will have to pay for them through increased taxes and insurance.
Hope this makes sense.
_________________
If you analyze enough data, you can predict the future.....its calculating probability, nothing more!
close
78% (01:23) correct 
