In response to advertisements for systems engineers the IT firms

Question

In response to advertisements for systems engineers, the IT firms in Gorgia received 3% higher number of applications in 2014 than in 2006. Nearly the same thing was witnessed in 2015 when the percentage of applications received was 3.5% higher than in 2006. It was surprising that Gorgia IT firms did not face any surplus of systems engineers around 2018, given the fact that the number of projects in Gorgia IT firms had been steadily decreasing and so had the number of systems engineers’ resignations.

Which of the following, if true, would contribute most to an explanation of the apparent discrepancy above?

A. The number of clients served by the IT firms in Gorgia has decreased rapidly since 2007 when many IT firms set up business in the adjacent county

B. The number of vacancies for the post of systems engineer in 2006 in Gorgia’s IT firms was 35% more than the applications received against advertisements.

C. The engineering colleges in Gorgia produced 4% more IT graduates than Computer Science graduates in 2014 and 2015.

D. The city council of Gorgia has planned to set up more engineering colleges by 2018 to cater to the growing demand for engineers in the IT firms.

E. The IT firms did not decrease the number of systems engineers assigned to each project.

tinbq · Answer

Hi,

In this question, we are required to find a choice that explains why the IT company is NOT in surplus of engineers even though the number of works/projects has been decreasing and the company has recruited more staff throughout the period (has had more applicants and less resigned staff).

So we can now prethink for some circumstances that the company still needs staff for work: i) it was previously in huge shortage of staff or ii) the number of staff per project increases.

Now we can look at choices and POE
A - the number of clients is not relevant to the argument-> eliminate A
B - this is exactly what is are looking for -> keep B
C - the number of graduated engineers during the period does not help the argument about not in abundance (it only points out the supply of staff) -> eliminate C
D - more engineering college is not relevant to the argument -> eliminate D
E - this choice is tempting because it is close to what we expect. However,  not decrease  is not enough since we need an increase that can offsets loss in number of projects. -> eliminate D

So B is the answer.

shaween18 · Answer

Please give an explanation to why B is correct

Kaichi · Answer

Referencing B) In 2006, when the firm started recruiting, they had 35% more vacancy versus applications.

So from this statement, there was already a shortage of workers (meaning lack of applicants for open roles in the firm). Which could further lead to answer the paradox, why is it that even WITH the uptick in applicants, 3% more in 2014 vs 2006 they could still be facing a shortage.

“ It was surprising that Gorgia IT firms did not face any surplus of systems engineers around 2018 “

This is the main point of the message. To break it down simply, why is it that with MORE applicants each year, Gorgia IT firm is not facing any SURPLUS in engineers? 
Going back to B, we know that there has been a shortage since ~2006.

Cheers

Posted from my mobile device

RiyaJ0032 · Answer

you have incorrectly assumed here that the shortage was "since 2006"

we are given the shortage was "in 2006"

with this, we cannot really infer that in 2018, despite reduction in projects, the shortage continued from 2006 and made its way in 2018

the info is simply not enough to make this sort of an assertion

but out of 5, maybe this is better, though incomplete

hr1212 · Answer

My thought here was to relate whether the number of applications received for the vacancies during 2006, 2014, 2015 were in surplus or adequate or in shortage and that required a bit of imagination to connect both data points.

If applications were in surplus or adequate before 2015, then in 2018 when number of projects went down then it would have led to decrease in system engineer roles and should have increased number of applications as more system engineers would have been unemployed which is the basic law of demand and supply. But the discrepancy here is that we don't see any surplus in 2018, which can then only be explained by number of vacancies already being in surplus which were not filled and hence even after reduction in roles, most system engineers did have adequate role for them.

Let's take some numbers in relation with what's mentioned in option B,

Year 
 Applications 
 Vacancies 
 
  2006 
 100 
 135 
 
  2014 
 103 
 135 
 
  2015 
 104 
 135 
 
  2018 
 105 
 105

So even after number of projects and vacancies (due to less resignations) went down, we can still see that applications are not in surplus as observed in the argument.

Although not the best approximation to confidently resolve the paradox, it's the only option which gives some explanation for the discrepancy observed in the passage.

IMO: B

In response to advertisements for systems engineers the IT firms

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

Year	Applications	Vacancies
2006	100	135
2014	103	135
2015	104	135
2018	105	105

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In response to advertisements for systems engineers the IT firms

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards