Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 29 May 2017, 15:13

### 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

Intern
Joined: 22 May 2015
Posts: 4
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 1 [0], given: 0

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
Manager
Joined: 12 Jan 2016
Posts: 72
Location: United States
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.5
WE: Supply Chain Management (Consumer Electronics)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 21 [0], given: 71

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: 127
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Economics
Schools: Tuck
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V30
GPA: 3.6
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 297

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 .
Manager
Joined: 13 Feb 2015
Posts: 231
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 32

Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were [#permalink]

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2017, 17:38
_________________

BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Aiming 800 Q51 V51
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 1716
Location: India
GMAT 1: 670 Q50 V32
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.65
WE: Brand Management (Health Care)
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 406 [0], given: 52

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
_________________

Good Luck

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Posts: 299
Location: India
Schools: IIMB
GMAT 1: 550 Q42 V28
GPA: 3.96
WE: Human Resources (Retail Banking)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 84

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: 500
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170
Followers: 154

Kudos [?]: 382 [0], given: 192

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).
_________________

www.gmatninja.com + blog

Join us for the verbal experts' live chat every Wednesday, 8 am PST/8:30 pm IST! Details available here.

Rules for posting in verbal forum | How to use search function (before posting questions!)

GMAT Club's ultimate verbal study plan, 2017 edition

Senior Manager
Joined: 24 Oct 2016
Posts: 299
Location: India
Schools: IIMB
GMAT 1: 550 Q42 V28
GPA: 3.96
WE: Human Resources (Retail Banking)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 18 [0], given: 84

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
BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Aiming 800 Q51 V51
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 1716
Location: India
GMAT 1: 670 Q50 V32
GMAT 2: 700 Q50 V34
GPA: 3.65
WE: Brand Management (Health Care)
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 406 [0], given: 52

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.
_________________

Good Luck

Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were   [#permalink] 04 Apr 2017, 23:05

Go to page   Previous    1   2   [ 29 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
9 Commerce Secretary: Over the past year, our nation’s economy grew at a 7 12 Mar 2017, 06:17
25 Many banks have a drive-through automated teller machine, 15 22 Mar 2017, 08:32
1 Many banks offer drive-through automatic teller machines 6 10 Aug 2015, 09:36
2 In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were 9 12 Jan 2016, 22:23
1 In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were 7 12 Jan 2016, 22:30
Display posts from previous: Sort by