Last visit was: 19 Jun 2024, 12:13 It is currently 19 Jun 2024, 12:13
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
SORT BY:
Date
Tags:
Difficulty: Sub 505 Level,    Weaken,             
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 22 Jul 2009
Posts: 82
Own Kudos [?]: 2406 [30]
Given Kudos: 6
Location: Manchester UK
 Q48  V28
Send PM
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 2
Own Kudos [?]: 6 [2]
Given Kudos: 4
Location: NJ
Send PM
User avatar
Director
Director
Joined: 07 Nov 2007
Posts: 717
Own Kudos [?]: 3084 [3]
Given Kudos: 5
Location: New York
Send PM
RC & DI Moderator
Joined: 02 Aug 2009
Status:Math and DI Expert
Posts: 11437
Own Kudos [?]: 33585 [0]
Given Kudos: 317
Send PM
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
Expert Reply
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
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 25 Jul 2009
Posts: 146
Own Kudos [?]: 725 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
1
Kudos
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2011
Posts: 158
Own Kudos [?]: 241 [2]
Given Kudos: 34
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
Schools: ISB '15
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V40
GPA: 3.18
WE:Supply Chain Management (Manufacturing)
Send PM
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
1
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
(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.
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Status:Flying over the cloud!
Posts: 379
Own Kudos [?]: 1551 [0]
Given Kudos: 44
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: International Business, Marketing
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Send PM
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
(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)
User avatar
Manager
Manager
Joined: 12 May 2011
Posts: 93
Own Kudos [?]: 54 [1]
Given Kudos: 1
Schools: HKUST
GMAT Date: 12-02-2011
GPA: 3.1
WE:Medicine and Health (Health Care)
Send PM
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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.
avatar
Intern
Intern
Joined: 22 May 2015
Posts: 4
Own Kudos [?]: 4 [1]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
1
Kudos
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
Manager
Joined: 12 Jan 2016
Posts: 57
Own Kudos [?]: 75 [0]
Given Kudos: 71
Location: United States
Concentration: Operations, General Management
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V35
GPA: 3.5
WE:Supply Chain Management (Consumer Electronics)
Send PM
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
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
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Status:Emory Goizueta Alum
Posts: 3598
Own Kudos [?]: 5449 [0]
Given Kudos: 346
Send PM
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
Expert Reply
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
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors
Posts: 6954
Own Kudos [?]: 64274 [3]
Given Kudos: 1808
Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170
Send PM
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
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).
Board of Directors
Joined: 18 Jul 2015
Status:Emory Goizueta Alum
Posts: 3598
Own Kudos [?]: 5449 [0]
Given Kudos: 346
Send PM
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
Expert Reply
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. :)
Manager
Manager
Joined: 26 Sep 2017
Status:To infinity and beyond
Posts: 215
Own Kudos [?]: 519 [0]
Given Kudos: 34
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, Technology
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
GPA: 3.31
WE:Engineering (Computer Software)
Send PM
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
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
Intern
Intern
Joined: 29 Apr 2018
Posts: 39
Own Kudos [?]: 283 [0]
Given Kudos: 328
Location: Korea, Republic of
Send PM
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
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
Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 119
Own Kudos [?]: 160 [0]
Given Kudos: 150
Location: India
Schools: IIMA WBS '22
GMAT 1: 640 Q46 V32
GMAT 2: 710 Q49 V38
Send PM
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
How come this official GMAT question is using "like" to quote examples?
Strenge.
Director
Director
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Posts: 756
Own Kudos [?]: 613 [0]
Given Kudos: 1350
Send PM
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
Hello GMATNinja

I chose option A for this question. After reading option A, my thought process was it is not entry of women in teaching/bank teller profession that caused slippage of pay and status of Teacher, Bank Teller etc. When status & pay of other profession i.e. Lawyer, doctor, and accounting rose up, status & pay of teacher, Bank teller went down. For example, in real life sometimes when one profession goes up, demand/status/pay of other profession goes down e.g. Engineering Profession vs Art profession (example from Indian market )
User avatar
Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 17466
Own Kudos [?]: 858 [0]
Given Kudos: 0
Send PM
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: In the past, teachers, bank tellers, and secretaries were predominantl [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6954 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
821 posts