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.




Similar question from OG 11 is posted here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/in-many-corp ... 77123.html

GMAT Club Revision Project - CR Q4

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

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

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.
_________________

Consider KUDOS if you feel the effort's worth it

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

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

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

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.

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.

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,