It is currently 19 Apr 2018, 23:59

### 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

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 798
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Re: Slipping of Pay and status [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Nov 2011, 00:50
(A) This one quite strengthen the conclusion, but i think it more out of scope

(B) Strengthen one

(D) More women join law industry => Strengthen ones

I confuse between (E) and (C), but I believe the answer (E) is stronger in weaken the conclusion. Therefore, the correct one is (E)
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Manager
Status: livin on a prayer!!
Joined: 12 May 2011
Posts: 116
Location: Australia
Re: Slipping of Pay and status [#permalink]

### Show Tags

05 Nov 2011, 19:51
I got E. This introduces a new reason the pay is different. It is not a strong answer but is the best one in the options.
_________________

Aim for the sky! (800 in this case)
If you like my post, please give me Kudos

Intern
Joined: 22 May 2015
Posts: 4
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2016, 12:47
Hi ,

The argument compares the past occurrences with the present. It compares that something(women will occupy those positions) that happened in the past will happen in future.
too(assumptions here is keeping everything same or constant).

Now to refute the argument we have to look for something that shows that past and future will vary because of certain other factors.

Option E states that point.

Please let me know if i am correct .

Thanks
Shuvam
Current Student
Joined: 12 Jan 2016
Posts: 70
Location: United States
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.5
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consumer Electronics)
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were [#permalink]

### Show Tags

16 Jun 2016, 17:35
Yep. Straight E. In my opinion, A does not even come close.

A) Accountants, lawyers, and physicians attained their current relatively high levels of income and prestige at about the same time that the pay and status of teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries slipped.

We cannot conclude from A if there is any other reason why the status of teachers etc. slipped. While statement A is true, women entering the entering these professions, could have still caused the status of these jobs to slip.
Manager
Joined: 06 Jun 2013
Posts: 180
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Tuck
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.6
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2017, 09:22
i would like to go with E.

expert reply required with explanation .
Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 801
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2017, 17:38
_________________

Board of Directors
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3341
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were [#permalink]

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2017, 03:28
Hi,

I think E clearly tells the reason why they are paid high and why women/men thing doesn't matter here. I dont agree with A at all. It is completely irrelevant.

I could see Chetan Sir has also agreed with E.

Since the OA for this question is not given, can someone please tell what is the OA?

Also, if it is A, then what is the reason for the same.

Thanks
_________________

How I improved from V21 to V40! ?

How to use this forum in THE BEST way?

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Posts: 305
Location: India
Schools: IIMB
GMAT 1: 550 Q42 V28
GPA: 3.96
WE: Human Resources (Retail Banking)
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2017, 00:14
hello , expert please clarify what is the oA , i have marked E ,but the threads above do not seems right most of saying A is the answer but could not find a best one ,
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1584
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2017, 11:36
Expert's post
Top Contributor
I'm not sure what the source of this question is. Looks like it's from some dodgy old internet sources from a decade or two ago, but the question seems reasonable enough.

I can't find a verifiable OA, but the answer seems to be E. Here's how I would break this down:

Quote:
In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantly men; these occupations slipped in pay and status when they became largely occupied by women. Therefore, if women become the majority in currently male-dominated professions like accounting, law, and medicine, the income and prestige of these professions will also drop.

Which of the following, if true, would most likely be part of the evidence used to refute the conclusion above?

OK, let's start by locking down the conclusion. It's clear enough in this example:

Quote:
...if women become the majority in currently male-dominated professions like accounting, law, and medicine, the income and prestige of these professions will also drop.

Great. And the passage offers only a little bit of support for this conclusion: the other occupations (teachers, bank tellers, secretaries) "slipped in pay and status when they became largely occupied by women."

In other words, the logic is: pay and status dropped when women became the majority in other professions, so it would happen again if women became the majority in accounting, law, and medicine.

And now we're trying to find something that could plausibly be used to refute the conclusion.

Quote:
(A) Accountants, lawyers, and physicians attained their current relatively high levels of income and prestige at about the same time that the pay and status of teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries slipped.

This seems completely irrelevant to me. We don't care when accountants, lawyers, and physicians started to attain high levels of income and prestige -- that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether pay & prestige will fall in the future if women begin to dominate other professions.

Quote:
(B) When large numbers of men join a female-dominated occupation, such as airline flight attendant, the status and pay of the occupation tend to increase.

Also irrelevant. We're interested in what happens when women begin to dominate a profession -- not what happens when men join a profession.

Quote:
(C) The demand for teachers and secretaries has increased significantly in recent years, while the demand for bank tellers has remained relatively stable.

That's nice. It also has nothing to do with the core question: what will happen when women enter law, accounting, and medicine?

Quote:
(D) If present trends in the awarding of law degrees to women continue, it will be at least two decades before the majority of lawyers are women.

Great, but this tells us nothing about what will happen to pay and prestige in these occupations.

Quote:
(E) The pay and status of female accountants, lawyers, and physicians today are governed by significantly different economic and sociological forces than were the pay and status of female teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries in the past.

We have a winner! Why? We're trying to find a reason why the decrease in pay/status for teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries MIGHT NOT happen again in these other professions. And this points right to it: if there are significantly different forces at work in these professions today, then history might not repeat itself in law, medicine, and accounting.

So it's definitely (E).
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset -- Wednesdays, February 14 - April 4!

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Posts: 305
Location: India
Schools: IIMB
GMAT 1: 550 Q42 V28
GPA: 3.96
WE: Human Resources (Retail Banking)
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2017, 20:06
Thank you very much, GMATninja for clarifying [FACE WITH OK GESTURE]

Sent from my vivo 1601 using GMAT Club Forum mobile app
Board of Directors
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3341
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were [#permalink]

### Show Tags

04 Apr 2017, 23:05
GMATNinja wrote:
I'm not sure what the source of this question is. Looks like it's from some dodgy old internet sources from a decade or two ago, but the question seems reasonable enough.

I can't find a verifiable OA, but the answer seems to be E. Here's how I would break this down:

Quote:
In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantly men; these occupations slipped in pay and status when they became largely occupied by women. Therefore, if women become the majority in currently male-dominated professions like accounting, law, and medicine, the income and prestige of these professions will also drop.

Which of the following, if true, would most likely be part of the evidence used to refute the conclusion above?

OK, let's start by locking down the conclusion. It's clear enough in this example:

Quote:
...if women become the majority in currently male-dominated professions like accounting, law, and medicine, the income and prestige of these professions will also drop.

Great. And the passage offers only a little bit of support for this conclusion: the other occupations (teachers, bank tellers, secretaries) "slipped in pay and status when they became largely occupied by women."

In other words, the logic is: pay and status dropped when women became the majority in other professions, so it would happen again if women became the majority in accounting, law, and medicine.

And now we're trying to find something that could plausibly be used to refute the conclusion.

Quote:
(A) Accountants, lawyers, and physicians attained their current relatively high levels of income and prestige at about the same time that the pay and status of teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries slipped.

This seems completely irrelevant to me. We don't care when accountants, lawyers, and physicians started to attain high levels of income and prestige -- that has nothing whatsoever to do with whether pay & prestige will fall in the future if women begin to dominate other professions.

Quote:
(B) When large numbers of men join a female-dominated occupation, such as airline flight attendant, the status and pay of the occupation tend to increase.

Also irrelevant. We're interested in what happens when women begin to dominate a profession -- not what happens when men join a profession.

Quote:
(C) The demand for teachers and secretaries has increased significantly in recent years, while the demand for bank tellers has remained relatively stable.

That's nice. It also has nothing to do with the core question: what will happen when women enter law, accounting, and medicine?

Quote:
(D) If present trends in the awarding of law degrees to women continue, it will be at least two decades before the majority of lawyers are women.

Great, but this tells us nothing about what will happen to pay and prestige in these occupations.

Quote:
(E) The pay and status of female accountants, lawyers, and physicians today are governed by significantly different economic and sociological forces than were the pay and status of female teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries in the past.

We have a winner! Why? We're trying to find a reason why the decrease in pay/status for teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries MIGHT NOT happen again in these other professions. And this points right to it: if there are significantly different forces at work in these professions today, then history might not repeat itself in law, medicine, and accounting.

So it's definitely (E).

Great. Thank you. I have added the OA to the question.
_________________

How I improved from V21 to V40! ?

How to use this forum in THE BEST way?

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 801
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were [#permalink]

### Show Tags

07 Jul 2017, 08:01
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
Merged topics. Please, search before posting questions!
_________________

Manager
Status: To infinity and beyond
Joined: 26 Sep 2017
Posts: 159
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V30
GPA: 3.31
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Mar 2018, 05:01
E gives a reason by making the two sets of jobs varying from each other so what is true for one need not be true for the other. E is the answer. To choose A we need to assume many things
_________________

just 1 kudo required to level up.Please give kudos if you like my post.Thanks

Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were   [#permalink] 30 Mar 2018, 05:01

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 33 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by