Summer is Coming! Join the Game of Timers Competition to Win Epic Prizes. Registration is Open. Game starts Mon July 1st.

It is currently 16 Jul 2019, 13:33

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 the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl

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

Hide Tags

Find Similar Topics 
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 132
Location: Manchester UK
In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 24 Nov 2018, 09:02
6
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

84% (01:48) correct 16% (02:05) wrong based on 616 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics


Project CR Butler:Day 19:Critical Reasoning (CR1)


For all CR butler Questions Click Here

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?


(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.

(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.

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

(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.

(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.

Originally posted by sagarsabnis on 30 Dec 2009, 15:32.
Last edited by gmat1393 on 24 Nov 2018, 09:02, edited 3 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 2
Location: NJ
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Dec 2009, 17:36
I go for E. What is official answer ?

Let us put this whole thing in simple terms:


Fact: A Impacted B. Statement: A will also impact C.

To prove this is wrong, we need to pick answer which shows C is different from B.
SVP
SVP
User avatar
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 1557
Location: New York
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Jan 2010, 23:21
3
mission2011 wrote:
I go for E. What is official answer ?

Let us put this whole thing in simple terms:


Fact: A Impacted B. Statement: A will also impact C.

To prove this is wrong, we need to pick answer which shows C is different from B.


Premise:
A Impacted ( decrease: pay and status )B
Con:A will Impact ( decrease: pay and status ) C

Anser E: says C is different from B. (because C governed by "X" and B doesn't )
C governing by X cannot guarantee that.. Pay and and Status will decrease or increase or constant. So, E is not correct answer.

_________________
Your attitude determines your altitude
Smiling wins more friends than frowning
Math Expert
User avatar
V
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Posts: 7764
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 02 Jan 2010, 07:15
ill go for E... what reasons have been given by others on top for A are hanging on only assumptions, which do not relate to anything stated in argument.....
however E gives a reason by making the two sets of job varying from each other so what is true for one need not be true for the other
_________________
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 228
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 17 Jan 2010, 07:28
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 17 Sep 2011
Posts: 164
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
Schools: ISB '15
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V40
GPA: 3.18
WE: Supply Chain Management (Manufacturing)
Reviews Badge
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Oct 2011, 12:58
1
(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. -increasing pay in such professions have no bearing on payscales of teaching profession.(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. -out of scope; if anyting instead of undermining , supports the conclusion(C) The demand for teachers and secretaries has increased significantly in recent years, while the demand for bank tellers has remained relatively stable.-more demand should actually increase pay, not decrease it
(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.-whether majority of such professionals are women now or 20 years later, doesnt affect the arguement either way(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.-CORRECT-IF this is true, this can put forward a different reason for changing pay scale other than the one assumed by the author. hence it undermines the author's belieff.
Retired Moderator
avatar
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 538
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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)
_________________
Manager
Manager
User avatar
Status: livin on a prayer!!
Joined: 12 May 2011
Posts: 104
Location: Australia
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Nov 2011, 19:51
1
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
Intern
avatar
Joined: 22 May 2015
Posts: 4
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
avatar
B
Joined: 12 Jan 2016
Posts: 67
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 predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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.
Board of Directors
User avatar
V
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3625
Reviews Badge
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
_________________
My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place
Blog: Subscribe to Question of the Day Blog
GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.
New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!
Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free
Check our new About Us Page here.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
D
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2666
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Apr 2017, 11:36
1
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/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (we're hiring!) | GMAT Club Verbal Expert | Instagram | Blog | Bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal: RC | CR | SC

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars: Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

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

Need an expert reply? Hit the request verbal experts' reply button; be specific about your question, and tag @GMATNinja. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

SC 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?

RC, CR, 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
Board of Directors
User avatar
V
Status: Stepping into my 10 years long dream
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Posts: 3625
Reviews Badge
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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. :)
_________________
My GMAT Story: From V21 to V40
My MBA Journey: My 10 years long MBA Dream
My Secret Hacks: Best way to use GMATClub | Importance of an Error Log!
Verbal Resources: All SC Resources at one place | All CR Resources at one place
Blog: Subscribe to Question of the Day Blog
GMAT Club Inbuilt Error Log Functionality - View More.
New Visa Forum - Ask all your Visa Related Questions - here.
New! Best Reply Functionality on GMAT Club!
Find a bug in the new email templates and get rewarded with 2 weeks of GMATClub Tests for free
Check our new About Us Page here.
Manager
Manager
avatar
P
Status: To infinity and beyond
Joined: 26 Sep 2017
Posts: 246
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 660 Q50 V30
GPA: 3.31
WE: Engineering (Computer Software)
Reviews Badge
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 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
_________________
Please give kudos if you like my post.Thanks
Manager
Manager
avatar
G
Joined: 29 Apr 2018
Posts: 54
Location: Korea, Republic of
CAT Tests
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 24 Nov 2018, 22:01
I got E.

As the stimuli contains cause-and-effect reasoning (ex. women becomes majority of the industry -> status and pay is decreased) , E breaks this cause-and-effect relationship, insisting that women becoming majority of the industry is nothing to do with the change of status and pay, instead is by significantly different economical factors.
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 67
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Jan 2019, 22:08
How come this official GMAT question is using "like" to quote examples?
Strenge.
_________________
Spread some happiness..Press Kudos! :)
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl   [#permalink] 04 Jan 2019, 22:08
Display posts from previous: Sort by

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

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





Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne