GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 20 Oct 2018, 08:49

Close

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
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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid

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

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Posts: 36
GMAT ToolKit User
In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Nov 2013, 10:31
2
13
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

56% (01:03) correct 44% (01:00) wrong based on 569 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid off to save money. However, a decrease in the number of teachers generally results in a decrease in student performance. Thus, the same school districts that are laying off part-time teachers to save money will eventually have to hire more tutors to counteract diminished student performance.

The author is arguing that

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachers
B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districts
C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs
D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of them
E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Apr 2012
Posts: 50
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 16 Nov 2013, 11:53
3
B . Here's why:

Premise1: Part time teachers being fired by schools to save money.
Premise 2: Students grades decrease because of decrease in no. of teachers.

Conclusion: Schools that are firing teachers to save money will NEED TO HIRE tutors to help students.
As in, schools will anyways end up spending money. Nobody knows if it'll be still profitable or not. The argument simply says that costs are being saved by laying off, HOWEVER, schools will end up HIRING tutors so some cost implication will be there!

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachers
Incorrect: Not mentioned anywhere.

B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districts
CORRECT. Exactly what the argument is implying.

C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs.
Incorrect . Out of scope.

D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of them
Incorrect. Author never talks about re-hiring the same teachers.

E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers
Contender. But not as strong as B because we don't know if the schools will still actually NOT SAVE any money. We know that schools will have to incur costs because of lay off but we don't know if that'll be profitable or not.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 14 Mar 2013
Posts: 46
Location: United States
Concentration: General Management, Leadership
GMAT Date: 12-03-2013
WE: General Management (Retail)
Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Nov 2013, 03:32
surbhi87 wrote:
B . Here's why:

Premise1: Part time teachers being fired by schools to save money.
Premise 2: Students grades decrease because of decrease in no. of teachers.

Conclusion: Schools that are firing teachers to save money will NEED TO HIRE tutors to help students.
As in, schools will anyways end up spending money. Nobody knows if it'll be still profitable or not. The argument simply says that costs are being saved by laying off, HOWEVER, schools will end up HIRING tutors so some cost implication will be there!

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachers
Incorrect: Not mentioned anywhere.

B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districts
CORRECT. Exactly what the argument is implying.

C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs.
Incorrect . Out of scope.

D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of them
Incorrect. Author never talks about re-hiring the same teachers.

E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers
Contender. But not as strong as B because we don't know if the schools will still actually NOT SAVE any money. We know that schools will have to incur costs because of lay off but we don't know if that'll be profitable or not.



I am maybe wrong, but the passage says: "a decrease in the number of teachers generally results in a decrease in student performance" and "to save money will eventually have to hire".

So, in option B "laying off part-time teachers to save money WILL result in other costs to the school districts" is wrong, it should be MIGHT.


Option C "many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs" seems to be correct.
The passage states that part-time teachers are being laid off to save money. So, if the teacher keeps working as part-tyme teacher, he or she might not get a new job, because part-time teachers are being laid off. In order to get a new job, they will have to became something else, such as tutors or full-time teachers.


--------------------
+KUDOS if I made you think in a different way. Thanks.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 29 Dec 2012
Posts: 17
Reviews Badge
Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2013, 01:04
I hope "E" is Best.

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachers
Schools may reduce the no.of lay offs instead of fully.
B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districts
May be true but not specific.
C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs
Out of scope.
D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of them
School may retain other teachers.
E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers
It is what clearly mentioned in the argument.
Retired Moderator
User avatar
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1036
Location: United States
Premium Member
Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2013, 02:24
4
schittuluri wrote:
I hope "E" is Best.

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachers
Schools may reduce the no.of lay offs instead of fully.
B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districts
May be true but not specific.
C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs
Out of scope.
D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of them
School may retain other teachers.
E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers
It is what clearly mentioned in the argument.


Hi schittuluri

B and E are contenders. But E is not OA, the correct answer is B.

The argument just says that if schools lay off part-time teachers, they will have to hire tutors. It means schools can save money by laying off part-time teachers, but they have to pay for NEW costs - costs of hiring tutors. B clearly says the same.

E, however, says that school will not save money. It's too extreme. For example, schools can save 100 usd by laying off part-time teachers, but they have to pay 80 usd for tutors. Clearly, school can save money. Hence, E is not always correct.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Chris Bangle - Former BMW Chief of Design.

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Apr 2012
Posts: 50
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2013, 14:20
amgelcer wrote:

I am maybe wrong, but the passage says: "a decrease in the number of teachers generally results in a decrease in student performance" and "to save money will eventually have to hire".

So, in option B "laying off part-time teachers to save money WILL result in other costs to the school districts" is wrong, it should be MIGHT.


Not really. Generally as in usually, as in it DOES result in a decrease in student performance. Notice the strong language : "To save money WILL HAVE TO hire" . This means additional costs 1000% !

amgelcer wrote:
Option C "many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs" seems to be correct.
The passage states that part-time teachers are being laid off to save money. So, if the teacher keeps working as part-tyme teacher, he or she might not get a new job, because part-time teachers are being laid off. In order to get a new job, they will have to became something else, such as tutors or full-time teachers.

This doesnt attack the conclusion as much. This is steering away from the main point. Concentrate on the fact that laying-off of teachers will lead to schools hiring more tutors (as stated in the argument). This is no way indicates anything about what the teachers' fate will be or how their careers will move fwd.
Hope this makes sense :)
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 23 Apr 2012
Posts: 50
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V34
Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 23 Nov 2013, 14:23
schittuluri wrote:
I hope "E" is Best.

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachers
Schools may reduce the no.of lay offs instead of fully.
B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districts
May be true but not specific.
C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs
Out of scope.
D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of them
School may retain other teachers.
E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers
It is what clearly mentioned in the argument.


Exactly like pghai said, E is too extreme. School districts may/may not "save" money. All we know from the question is that schools are firing, but they may have to hire again! Nobody knows if this will result in profilt/loss/breakeven !
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 09 Nov 2013
Posts: 81
Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 29 Nov 2013, 07:19
I endorse sthittuluri POV
E is the high probable answer: the conclusion says " more tutors.." and w.r.t the laid-off tutors. thus, in worst case even the cost will be same if not lower. The comparison is between no. of tutor laid-off to potential required. Moreover, in option B no where it is mentioned that Laying off will cost other costs. If one refutes the above then pl explain me that in such case, "more tutors" is more w.r.t to whom.
Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Posts: 2657
Location: United States (IL)
Concentration: Finance, Economics
GMAT 1: 650 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.92
WE: General Management (Transportation)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 26 Oct 2015, 16:04
B is the winner. The argument says that there will be costs. E is tempting, but it says that will not save. It can be the case that even if it hire tutors, it will still save $
D can't be, since we do not know the relation between teacher and tutor.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 30 May 2018
Posts: 74
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V45
GPA: 3.45
WE: Other (Retail)
Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2018, 22:28
pqhai wrote:
schittuluri wrote:
I hope "E" is Best.

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachers
Schools may reduce the no.of lay offs instead of fully.
B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districts
May be true but not specific.
C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs
Out of scope.
D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of them
School may retain other teachers.
E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers
It is what clearly mentioned in the argument.


Hi schittuluri

B and E are contenders. But E is not OA, the correct answer is B.

The argument just says that if schools lay off part-time teachers, they will have to hire tutors. It means schools can save money by laying off part-time teachers, but they have to pay for NEW costs - costs of hiring tutors. B clearly says the same.

E, however, says that school will not save money. It's too extreme. For example, schools can save 100 usd by laying off part-time teachers, but they have to pay 80 usd for tutors. Clearly, school can save money. Hence, E is not always correct.

Hope it helps.

Somehow , are we not assuming here that hiring new tutors will be an additional cost ? Isn't this assumption totally out of scope ?
Option B says - Laying off part time tutors will result in additional cost which is not coming out from the argument at all , somehow I still feel that option E is stronger here . Any comments ?
_________________

Kudos if you agree , Comment if you don't !!!

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Aug 2018
Posts: 19
CAT Tests
In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Oct 2018, 23:29
Hi,

Still torn between B and E.

IMO, B seems right but there's no mention of 'other costs' in the argument and hiring of new tutor may or may not lead to additional costs.

However, option E also may or may not be correct depending on the cost of new hires (read, costlier new tutors).

Can an expert,VeritasKarishma GMATNinja GMATNinjaTWO mikemcgarry egmat & others , please help us on this ?

Posted from my mobile device
Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8399
Location: Pune, India
Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Oct 2018, 22:36
1
aakrity wrote:
In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid off to save money. However, a decrease in the number of teachers generally results in a decrease in student performance. Thus, the same school districts that are laying off part-time teachers to save money will eventually have to hire more tutors to counteract diminished student performance.

The author is arguing that

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachers
B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districts
C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs
D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of them
E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers


It is a toughie but quite reasonable. Here is why:

Premises
- In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid off to save money.
- Decrease in the number of teachers generally results in a decrease in student performance.

Conclusion:
Thus, these districts will eventually have to hire more tutors to counteract diminished student performance.
(It is logical to assume that there will be a cost associated with these hires. "Hire" implies "in exchange for money or some such cost". It does not say "volunteers"


A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachers
No. The author talks about what will happen after the school lays off part time teachers. He doesn't say that schools will not be able to lay off.


B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districts
Correct. He says that laying off these teachers will eventually lead to hiring tutors (other costs).

C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs
Irrelevant to the argument.

D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of them
No, the author does not say that schools will re-hire the ones it lays off. He says that firing will lead to hiring of tutors later. Whether same ones will be hired or different, we don't know.

E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers
Not true. The author just says that the activity of firing to save money will lead to other costs later. The school may be able to save money if the tutor-hires are cheaper than the current salary of its part time teachers. The author is not saying that the school will not save money in the whole deal. He is just saying that there will be other costs later.

Answer (B)
_________________

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 >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Joined: 30 May 2018
Posts: 74
Concentration: General Management, Marketing
GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V45
GPA: 3.45
WE: Other (Retail)
Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Oct 2018, 22:48
1
VeritasKarishma wrote:
aakrity wrote:
In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid off to save money. However, a decrease in the number of teachers generally results in a decrease in student performance. Thus, the same school districts that are laying off part-time teachers to save money will eventually have to hire more tutors to counteract diminished student performance.

The author is arguing that

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachers
B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districts
C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs
D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of them
E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers


It is a toughie but quite reasonable. Here is why:

Premises
- In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid off to save money.
- Decrease in the number of teachers generally results in a decrease in student performance.

Conclusion:
Thus, these districts will eventually have to hire more tutors to counteract diminished student performance.
(It is logical to assume that there will be a cost associated with these hires. "Hire" implies "in exchange for money or some such cost". It does not say "volunteers"


A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachers
No. The author talks about what will happen after the school lays off part time teachers. He doesn't say that schools will not be able to lay off.


B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districts
Correct. He says that laying off these teachers will eventually lead to hiring tutors (other costs).

C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs
Irrelevant to the argument.

D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of them
No, the author does not say that schools will re-hire the ones it lays off. He says that firing will lead to hiring of tutors later. Whether same ones will be hired or different, we don't know.

E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers
Not true. The author just says that the activity of firing to save money will lead to other costs later. The school may be able to save money if the tutor-hires are cheaper than the current salary of its part time teachers. The author is not saying that the school will not save money in the whole deal. He is just saying that there will be other costs later.

Answer (B)

HI VeritasKarishma , Hope you are doing well.

I still seem to have a doubt here as I have mentioned earlier , pls let me discern if its correct or not?
In your explanation you've mentioned that for answer option B , hiring new Tutors would be an additional cost , but dont you think that its a strong assumption or a conjecture as question stem says nothing.
Where as answer option E is a direct outcome of the question stem where it clearly states that laying off tutors wont help as the student performance would go down and to counter it , the school will have to hire the tutors again. eventually not being able to save any cost which was the motive in the first place.

Pls share your opinion.

Thanks
_________________

Kudos if you agree , Comment if you don't !!!

Veritas Prep GMAT Instructor
User avatar
P
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Posts: 8399
Location: Pune, India
Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Oct 2018, 23:56
1
Arpitkumar wrote:
VeritasKarishma wrote:
aakrity wrote:
In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid off to save money. However, a decrease in the number of teachers generally results in a decrease in student performance. Thus, the same school districts that are laying off part-time teachers to save money will eventually have to hire more tutors to counteract diminished student performance.

The author is arguing that

A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachers
B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districts
C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs
D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of them
E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers


It is a toughie but quite reasonable. Here is why:

Premises
- In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid off to save money.
- Decrease in the number of teachers generally results in a decrease in student performance.

Conclusion:
Thus, these districts will eventually have to hire more tutors to counteract diminished student performance.
(It is logical to assume that there will be a cost associated with these hires. "Hire" implies "in exchange for money or some such cost". It does not say "volunteers"


A. diminished student performance will keep school districts from laying off part-time teachers
No. The author talks about what will happen after the school lays off part time teachers. He doesn't say that schools will not be able to lay off.


B. laying off part-time teachers to save money will result in other costs to the school districts
Correct. He says that laying off these teachers will eventually lead to hiring tutors (other costs).

C. many part-time teachers who are laid off will have to retrain for other types of jobs
Irrelevant to the argument.

D. school districts that are laying off teachers will eventually rehire many of them
No, the author does not say that schools will re-hire the ones it lays off. He says that firing will lead to hiring of tutors later. Whether same ones will be hired or different, we don't know.

E. school districts will not save money by laying off part-time teachers
Not true. The author just says that the activity of firing to save money will lead to other costs later. The school may be able to save money if the tutor-hires are cheaper than the current salary of its part time teachers. The author is not saying that the school will not save money in the whole deal. He is just saying that there will be other costs later.

Answer (B)

HI VeritasKarishma , Hope you are doing well.

I still seem to have a doubt here as I have mentioned earlier , pls let me discern if its correct or not?
In your explanation you've mentioned that for answer option B , hiring new Tutors would be an additional cost , but dont you think that its a strong assumption or a conjecture as question stem says nothing.
Where as answer option E is a direct outcome of the question stem where it clearly states that laying off tutors wont help as the student performance would go down and to counter it , the school will have to hire the tutors again. eventually not being able to save any cost which was the motive in the first place.

Pls share your opinion.

Thanks


Hey Arpitkumar!

Think about it - aren't you guilty of making the same "assumption" in (E) too? You are assuming that there will be no saving so you are assuming that tutors will be paid (a cost). Plus, you are also assuming in (E) that the cost of tutors will be equal to (or even more than) the cost saved by laying off part time teachers.
It is reasonable to think that "hiring a tutor" will have a cost. But is it reasonable to assume that hiring a tutor will have the same cost as that of having a part time teacher?
_________________

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 >

GMAT self-study has never been more personalized or more fun. Try ORION Free!

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 31 Aug 2018
Posts: 19
CAT Tests
Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Oct 2018, 00:07
Hey Arpitkumar!

Think about it - aren't you guilty of making the same "assumption" in (E) too? You are assuming that there will be no saving so you are assuming that tutors will be paid (a cost). Plus, you are also assuming in (E) that the cost of tutors will be equal to (or even more than) the cost saved by laying off part time teachers.
It is reasonable to think that "hiring a tutor" will have a cost. But is it reasonable to assume that hiring a tutor will have the same cost as that of having a part time teacher?[/quote]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Got it now.. Many Thanks VeritasKarishma !!
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid &nbs [#permalink] 05 Oct 2018, 00:07
Display posts from previous: Sort by

In many school districts, part-time teachers are being laid

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


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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®.