In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor : Critical Reasoning (CR)

paidlukkha

Senior Manager

Joined: 11 Nov 2014

Posts: 263

Location: India

Concentration: Finance, International Business

Schools: ISB '18 Great Lakes '18 SPJ PGPM"17 LBS '18 NTU '18 NUS '18

WE:Project Management (Telecommunications)

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

08 May 2016, 02:12

Confused between C and D
C states cause
D states effect
Why is D wrong?

Posted from my mobile device

G

mikemcgarry

Magoosh GMAT Instructor

Joined: 28 Dec 2011

Posts: 4446

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

09 May 2016, 11:53

Expert Reply

paidlukkha wrote:

Confused between C and D
C states cause
D states effect
Why is D wrong?

Dear paidlukkha,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

My friend, I am not sure if you realize that this very question is already discussed on this thread. For example, user monsoon1 asked this in his post of November 3, 2012, and in the very next post, on November 5, 2012, I responded. I suggest reading this part of the thread, and if you have question about what I've said, or if anything is unclear, please do not hesitate to ask.

Mike :-)

_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Signature Read More

B

RichaChampion

Manager

Joined: 28 Sep 2013

Posts: 71

GMAT 1: 740 Q51 V39

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

06 Aug 2016, 15:35

1

Kudos

1

Bookmarks

mikemcgarry wrote:

andy2whang wrote:

Dear,
Can anyone please explain what "D)" means?
"(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed."

In my translation,
condition: technology improvement
effect: icrease in labor productivity
so, does it mean that there is ome some other condtion played in the role of increase in labor productivity?

And OE for D is "The argument does not mention how long Parland has had more productive labor, or when
technological improvements would have occurred"

I am not sure why OE mentions "how long..." and "when...." to justify that d) is incorrect.

question choice and OE both are just confusing.
Please someone help me understand.

thanks
Andy

Dear Andy,
I'm happy to help. :-)

Yes, this is a tricky official question.

Here's the text of the question again.
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

First, let's think about the nature of the objection that (D) holds. Here are a series of extremely bad arguments.
Faulty argument #1: The Dred Scott decision (1857) was a direct response to the election of Abraham Lincoln (1860).
Faulty argument #2: The election of Ronald Reagan (1980) was a direct result of the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989)
Faulty argument #3: By answering your question, I caused you to ask the question.
All three of these are disastrous bad arguments, and all three make the same mistake. All three of these would be vulnerable to the objection that (D) makes. In order for X to cause Y, X must come earlier in time than Y. A cause may come immediately before an effect, or there may be a gap of minutes, hours, days, or even millions of years.
Striking a match immediately causes the match to burst into flame.
Not remembering to put gas in one's car will cause the car, a few hours or few days later, to run out of gas.
A habit of cigarette smoking, started in one's teen years, cause either cancer or heart disease over the course of decades.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution (1789) causes American citizens today to have the gun rights they have.
The separation of N & S America from Europe & Africa, 175 million years ago, cause Columbus & the 16th century explorers to find very different animals & plants in the New World and the Old World.
The cause could happen any time before the effect, but it absolutely can't happen after the effect.

That's what (D) says.
It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
In other words, the argument is interpreting a certain condition to be the effect of a particular cause, but this reputed cause took place after the condition, the supposed effect, was already happening. It's a very powerful objection to a cause-effect argument if we can demonstrate that the reputed cause took place after the effect.

Why is (D) not the OA? Well, we get no information about when any of these things happened. Time isn't discussed at all. We know Parland's industries have higher labor productivity ---that's the effect the argument is trying to explain. We have no evidence about when in time Parland started using advanced technology, or whether they use it at all. (D) would be a very power objection if a time sequence were explicitly present in the argument, but it is not.

OK, let's go back to the argument.
Parland has a higher level of labor productivity than does Vergia. This difference is what we want to explain. Why does Parland have higher labor productivity?

The argument tells us that one way to increase labor productivity is to use advanced technology. Is this the absolutely only way on earth to increase labor productivity? Absolutely not! In some cases better educated or better trained workers might be more productive, or better equipment or better supplies or better materials might help. There are many things that can contribute to labor productivity, and advanced technology is one of them.

We want to explain why Parland has higher labor productivity. It could be because Parland has more advanced technology. That could be the cause, but it doesn't have to be. The argument fallaciously assumes that advanced technology must be the cause, the only cause, of Parland's higher labor productivity.

This is another very powerful objection. If I say, "Here's a case of B. Since A causes B, A must have caused this instance of B," then a very powerful objection would be simply to point out that B has other causes besides A. Yes, we all see an instance of B, but was it caused by A or C or D? We don't know, and we can't automatically assume the one cause was responsible and not the others.

This is exactly what (C) says:
It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

Part of what is hard about this is the abstract wording. Part of what is challenging, though, is that you have to have a good intuitive sense about how the business world works. Presumably you are taking the GMAT so that you can get into business school. Well, if a candidate applies to business school and then, on the interview, doesn't give any evidence of understanding how the business world works, that's not going to look good. It's very important to build your understanding of how the business world works---what factors might influence labor productivity, for example. See this blog article:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/gmat-criti ... knowledge/

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)

Wow, Mr. Garry, I wish I can give you 10 Kudos for the explanation. I have saved this link.
Here is my Interpretation based on the explanation given by You for refusing Option D.

X causes Y

X = Technological Improvement
Y = Labor Productivity Increases
X→ Y

PRETHINKING: Argument assumes that Only X can Cause Y.
If somehow we can challenge this assumption then we can weaken the conclusion. This can be done If -

We can prove that there is some other reason say A that causes Y
A CAUSES Y = A → Y

But here option D says Y(Effect, which is given the name of Condition here) existed before the Causes (X). At a very fundamental level, it is actually spoiling the Cause and Effect Definition by stating that Effect occurred before the Cause. Technically it breaks the Flow or causality that Technological Improvement Caused Improved Productivity, but at the same time it destroys the basic definition of Cause and Effect, and thus this is a bad argument.

Analogy: In Sentence Correction Questions sometimes many options are correct grammatically, but they destroy the logic and meaning.

G

mikemcgarry

Magoosh GMAT Instructor

Joined: 28 Dec 2011

Posts: 4446

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

10 Oct 2016, 16:20

2

Kudos

Expert Reply

betterscore wrote:

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.

(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.

(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.

(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

This is CR #8 in the OG13.

[
Dear Nevernevergiveup,

My friend, part of what is going on is that you have to learn the vocabulary of logic. For example, the word "presuppose" has a very precise and sophisticated meaning. You will not understand that word by substituting one or two other words. You have to have the full and precise meaning of that word. You have to learn it and own it, so that when you see in a sentence such as this, it already makes sense.

What I have said of this one word is true of many of the logical terms in the answer choices. There is absolutely no substitute for knowing exactly what each word means. This problem provides a great start: you should make it your goal to learn the precise definition of each word that appears in these answer choices.

Knowing the vocab is step one. Once you know exactly what each word means, we can begin to put together the whole sentence.

For example, in (E), probably the hardest word is "presuppose." Here's the simple definition from Merriam-Webster:
to be based on the idea that something is true or will happen

Part of what might be confusing is the grammar also. The structure "the conclusion to be established" exhibits a particular idiomatic structure. The idiom "the [noun] to be [verb + ed]" is a structure that implies intention or necessary action. Describing a job as "the task to be done," implies that someone, probably someone in authority, wants this task done. In a math problem, we might talk about "the value to be found," that is, the value for which the question is asking. In this CR problem, there's a conclusion that someone is trying to establish, so this is "the conclusion to be established."

Choice (E) objects that the argument "makes a distinction," specifies a difference between two things at the beginning of the argument, and this distinction or difference "presupposes" or is logically dependent on "the truth of the conclusion that is to be established."

You see, the way an argument words, the premises are supposed to prove or provide support to the conclusion. If the premises presuppose the conclusion, that is a HUGE problem for the argument! If the premises need support from the conclusion, and the conclusion needs support from the premise, it sounds as if there's nothing reliable at all!

My friend, you need to read. You need to take up a practice of reading, reading hard logical analyses in English. See:
How to Improve Your GMAT Verbal Score
You need to keep up a habit of reading until choices such as this seem easy.

Does all this make sense?
Mike :-)

_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Signature Read More

B

ravikumarmishra

Manager

Joined: 10 Aug 2009

Posts: 53

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

02 Feb 2019, 15:56

mikemcgarry wrote:

andy2whang wrote:

Dear,
Can anyone please explain what "D)" means?
"(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed."

In my translation,
condition: technology improvement
effect: icrease in labor productivity
so, does it mean that there is ome some other condtion played in the role of increase in labor productivity?

And OE for D is "The argument does not mention how long Parland has had more productive labor, or when
technological improvements would have occurred"

I am not sure why OE mentions "how long..." and "when...." to justify that d) is incorrect.

question choice and OE both are just confusing.
Please someone help me understand.

thanks
Andy

Dear Andy,
I'm happy to help.

Yes, this is a tricky official question.

Here's the text of the question again.
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?
(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.

First, let's think about the nature of the objection that (D) holds. Here are a series of extremely bad arguments.
Faulty argument #1: The Dred Scott decision (1857) was a direct response to the election of Abraham Lincoln (1860).
Faulty argument #2: The election of Ronald Reagan (1980) was a direct result of the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989)
Faulty argument #3: By answering your question, I caused you to ask the question.
All three of these are disastrous bad arguments, and all three make the same mistake. All three of these would be vulnerable to the objection that (D) makes. In order for X to cause Y, X must come earlier in time than Y. A cause may come immediately before an effect, or there may be a gap of minutes, hours, days, or even millions of years.
Striking a match immediately causes the match to burst into flame.
Not remembering to put gas in one's car will cause the car, a few hours or few days later, to run out of gas.
A habit of cigarette smoking, started in one's teen years, cause either cancer or heart disease over the course of decades.
The Second Amendment of the US Constitution (1789) causes American citizens today to have the gun rights they have.
The separation of N & S America from Europe & Africa, 175 million years ago, cause Columbus & the 16th century explorers to find very different animals & plants in the New World and the Old World.
The cause could happen any time before the effect, but it absolutely can't happen after the effect.

That's what (D) says.
It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
In other words, the argument is interpreting a certain condition to be the effect of a particular cause, but this reputed cause took place after the condition, the supposed effect, was already happening. It's a very powerful objection to a cause-effect argument if we can demonstrate that the reputed cause took place after the effect.

Why is (D) not the OA? Well, we get no information about when any of these things happened. Time isn't discussed at all. We know Parland's industries have higher labor productivity ---that's the effect the argument is trying to explain. We have no evidence about when in time Parland started using advanced technology, or whether they use it at all. (D) would be a very power objection if a time sequence were explicitly present in the argument, but it is not.

OK, let's go back to the argument.
Parland has a higher level of labor productivity than does Vergia. This difference is what we want to explain. Why does Parland have higher labor productivity?

The argument tells us that one way to increase labor productivity is to use advanced technology. Is this the absolutely only way on earth to increase labor productivity? Absolutely not! In some cases better educated or better trained workers might be more productive, or better equipment or better supplies or better materials might help. There are many things that can contribute to labor productivity, and advanced technology is one of them.

We want to explain why Parland has higher labor productivity. It could be because Parland has more advanced technology. That could be the cause, but it doesn't have to be. The argument fallaciously assumes that advanced technology must be the cause, the only cause, of Parland's higher labor productivity.

This is another very powerful objection. If I say, "Here's a case of B. Since A causes B, A must have caused this instance of B," then a very powerful objection would be simply to point out that B has other causes besides A. Yes, we all see an instance of B, but was it caused by A or C or D? We don't know, and we can't automatically assume the one cause was responsible and not the others.

This is exactly what (C) says:
It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

Part of what is hard about this is the abstract wording. Part of what is challenging, though, is that you have to have a good intuitive sense about how the business world works. Presumably you are taking the GMAT so that you can get into business school. Well, if a candidate applies to business school and then, on the interview, doesn't give any evidence of understanding how the business world works, that's not going to look good. It's very important to build your understanding of how the business world works---what factors might influence labor productivity, for example. See this blog article:
https://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/gmat-criti ... knowledge/

Does all this make sense?
Mike

It makes perfect sense Mike. I too, chose D and after reading your AWESOME explanation understood why D is wrong. K+1. I wonder how come it is a low difficulty question despite the abstract language of the answer choices.

P

LoneSurvivor

Senior Manager

Joined: 23 Nov 2016

Posts: 312

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33 Verified score

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

27 Jul 2020, 08:06

X is necessary condition for Y and X is a possible condition for Y are two different

G

CEdward

VP

Joined: 11 Aug 2020

Posts: 1263

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

03 Feb 2021, 15:31

1

Bookmarks

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a ~~paraphrase~~ of one of the pieces of information provided in its support. X
The conclusion was not a paraphrase. It flowed directly from the premises as follows:
P1: In any industry, tech improvements increase labor productivity
P2: Labor productivity is higher in Parland's industries than Vergia's
C: Parland's industry on the whole is further advanced technologically than Vergia's

(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
There are no inconsistencies among the premises

(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
Correct.
The author of the passage clearly does not consider other possible causes of an increase in productivity (e.g. more vacations, better workplace environment, etc.)

(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed. X
-no...we don't know that productivity already existed ...goes beyond the passage

(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.
No such distinctions or presuppositions were made
_________________

"Do not pray for an easy life, pray for the strength to endure a difficult one." - Bruce Lee

Signature Read More

B

celan99

Intern

Joined: 25 Feb 2021

Posts: 36

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

06 Apr 2021, 21:41

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

P : Tech improvements -> increase labor productivity
P : P industry's productivity > V industry's productivity
C : P Tech improvements > V Tech improvement

Is there any other factors that may affect productivity?

(A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
-> Incorrect. The argument did base it's conclusion on the premise that it has suggested but did not just paraphrase.
In fact, the conclusion presumes far behind what the premise can promise.

(B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
-> Incorrect. There is no other evidence that stands against to original evidence.

(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
-> Correct, The arguments suggests one option that causes productivity increase but does not consider other factors in making a conclusion.

(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
-> This option is relevant to cause-effect type of argument and is trying to state that cause-effect should be in opposite direction.

(E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.
-> The argument did not presupposes any information from the conclusion. To make this option viable, the conclusion must be a very general argument, viable to opt to other arguments as well.

G

BLTN

Senior Manager

Joined: 25 Aug 2020

Posts: 252

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

15 May 2021, 01:18

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries. Clearly, therefore, Parland's industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia's are.

Conditional reasoning:
Technological improvements - sufficient condition "X"
Increase labor productivity - necessary condition "Y"

X ---> Y the overriding point in "conditional reasoning" is that X do not lead/cause Y directly!!!
Y is only on of the passible conditions and "utterly necessary". Rather it is an indicator that necessary condition will happen or happening or happed.

Argument,
Premise: "X" (Technological improvements ) -- > "Y" (Increase labor productivity)
Conclusion "Y" (Increase labor productivity) -- >"X" (Technological improvements )

The conclusion mistake called "mistake reversal". As alluded above Y is necessary condition but not only one!

For instance,
When people take umbrella rain on the street
X (umbrella) -sufficient condition
Y (rain) - necessary condition
Thus, X (umbrella) --- > Y (rain)
Yet, Y (rain) --//--> X (umbrella)
What if I forgot umbrella? What if I do not have an umbrella?

There are only 2 plausible scenarios:
X (umbrella) --- > Y (rain)
and contrapositive
No Y (rain) --- > No X (umbrella)

In sum, the only answer that fix "mistake reversal" issue is C:

(C) It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.

G

AnishPassi

Tutor

Joined: 16 Jul 2014

Status:GMAT Coach

Affiliations: The GMAT Co.

Posts: 105

Concentration: Strategy

Schools: IIMA (A)

GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V41

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

25 Jan 2022, 06:10

4

Kudos

1

Bookmarks

Expert Reply

The Story

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. – Tech improvements → Labor productivity ↑
What is labor productivity? Output per person-hour worked.
What is ‘person-hour’? If 10 people work 40 hours each in a week, that is 400 person-hours.
In this sentence we are provided with a general trend.

In Parland’s industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia’s industries. – P’s labor productivity >> V’s labor productivity (I’m thinking: the author might link tech improvements with the higher labor productivity)

Clearly, therefore, Parland’s industries must, on the whole, be further advanced technologically than Vergia’s are. – (Yup.) The author concludes that P must be further advanced in tech than V.

Author’s logic:
Tech improvements lead to ↑ labor productivity. In P, labor productivity is higher than in V (basis). Therefore, In P, tech must be better than in V. (main point)

Gap(s) in logic:
Alright, so tech improvements increase labor productivity. But, can’t other things also increase labor productivity? The passage doesn’t claim that tech improvements is the only way to increase labor productivity. So, if a country has higher labor productivity, it could potentially be because of other reasons too. E.g. Better processes or higher operational efficiency.

Question Stem

The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?

Framework
What’s a flaw in the argument’s logic? As per the above gap analysis, one flaw could be that the argument is confusing a factor that is enough for an outcome to be something that is the only way to achieve that outcome.

Answer choice analysis

A. It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one of the pieces of information provided in its support.
Incorrect. What is the conclusion? The last sentence. That P’s industries must be further advanced technologically that V’s are.
Is this statement a paraphrase of any of the supporting statements? In fact, is the conclusion a paraphrase of anything that’s been mentioned before? No, it isn’t. The conclusion is based on two statements, it isn’t a paraphrase of either.

B. It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
Incorrect. First, what does the statement mean?
It presents certain information that is inconsistent with certain other evidence.
Information: Evidence in support of a claim
Other evidence: Evidence in support of the same claim
So, what is inconsistent with what? Two pieces of evidence used to support the same claim.

Alright, now let’s move on to figuring out whether this is a flaw in the argument.
Statements 1 and 2 of the passage do provide support for the claim made in statement 3.
However, the two supports are not inconsistent with each other? These two statements are the only supporting pieces of evidence in the passage.

C. It takes one possible cause of a condition to be the actual cause of that condition without considering any other possible causes.
Correct. ‘Tech improvements’ is one possible cause for ↑ labor productivity
There could be other possible causes behind ↑ labor productivity.
The argument does not consider other possible causes.
This is exactly the mistake the argument makes.

D. It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.
Incorrect. What does the option mean?
To understand the option better, I’ll use 2 variables:
X: ‘a condition’
Y: ‘something that happened after’
The argument takes X to be the effect of Y
i.e., Y caused X
And, Y happened after X
In other words, what the argument considered as the cause actually happened after the effect.
Now, let’s evaluate.
The argument considers ‘technological advancement’ as the cause for ‘increased labor productivity. However, did technological advancement happen after labor productivity had already increased? There is no such indication in the argument. Timeline, what happened before/ after are not discussed at all.

E. It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.
Incorrect. ‘Presuppose’: to suppose beforehand
‘Presupposes the truth of the conclusion’: To believe the conclusion to be true even before it is established
‘Distinction’: a difference of contrast between similar things
Does the argument presuppose the truth of the conclusion before it is established? The argument does not, in any part, believe the conclusion to be true before it is made in the end.

The argument is one-directional. No form of ‘presupposition’ going on in the argument.

S

woohoo921

Director

Joined: 04 Jun 2020

Posts: 553

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

13 Feb 2022, 12:56

I am confused by the wording "that condition" in the correct answer choice. Does "that condition" refer to the condition of Vergia having a much higher labor productivity? Thank you in advance.

G

ReedArnoldMPREP

Manhattan Prep Instructor

Joined: 30 Apr 2021

Posts: 521

GMAT 1: 760 Q49 V47

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

13 Feb 2022, 13:04

2

Kudos

Expert Reply

woohoo921 wrote:

I am confused by the wording "that condition" in the correct answer choice. Does "that condition" refer to the condition of Vergia having a much higher labor productivity? Thank you in advance.

Vergia's labor productivity is lower, but yes, that is the condition being discussed.

The GMAT likes to do this. It uses a generic label-term for the specific situation in the prompt.

"A phenomenon" "An event" "a curiosity" "a dilemma" and you have to contextualize, "what in the problem could be the phenomenon, event, curiosity, dilemma, etc.?"
_________________

REED ARNOLD
Manhattan Prep GMAT Instructor

Video: The 24 Things Every GMAT Studier Needs to Do
How to Improve a GMAT Score
The Studying Verbal Starter Kit (...That's much more than a 'starter kit')
The Studying Quant Starter Kit (...That's much more than a 'starter kit')

The PERFECT data sufficiency question:

On a three person bench, George sits in the middle of Alice and Darryl. If Alice is married, is an unmarried person sitting next to a married person?

Answer:

Show Spoiler

B

Signature Read More

P

jabhatta2

VP

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Posts: 1381

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

23 Mar 2022, 06:57

Parland vs. Vergia

Step 1: Identify the Question

The wording vulnerable to … criticisms in the question stem indicates that this is a Find the Flaw question. The argument must have a flawed assumption somewhere, so try to spot it while you deconstruct the argument.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

The argument begins by establishing that tech improvements increase labor productivity (i.e., the output that people produce per hour of work) and that Parland has higher labor productivity than does Vergia. The argument concludes that Parland must therefore be more technologically advanced than Vergia.

TechImpr → LabProd↑

LabProd: in Par > in Ver

© Par more tech advanced than Ver

You’re expected to accept as true the maxim stated in the first sentence: that tech improvements lead to better labor productivity. In terms of comparing Parland (P) and Vergia (V), though, the only premise given is that P has higher labor productivity than V. Is it possible that labor productivity could be high, independently of technological improvements? Sure. The argument does not state that the only way to increase labor productivity is to first have high tech; there could be another explanation for P’s higher labor productivity.

Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Flaw questions, the goal is to uncover a flawed assumption made by the argument. In this case, the author assumes that the only way to increase labor productivity is to first have technological improvements, but the argument doesn’t say this. Rather, the argument says that if you have high tech, then you will also increase labor productivity—but it provides no information about whether there are other ways to increase labor productivity.

Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) The conclusion goes beyond paraphrasing one of the premises. It concludes something about the relative levels of technological advancement of the two areas; the premises don’t provide any information about technological advancement levels in P and V.

(B) The first piece of evidence, found in the first sentence, is a general maxim about the relationship between tech improvements and labor productivity. The second piece of evidence, found in the second sentence, compares labor productivity in two different regions. The second piece of evidence does not contradict or even directly address the first piece of evidence.

(C) CORRECT. This is the flaw! The author assumes that tech improvements are the only way to improve labor productivity. While this is certainly one possible cause of increased labor productivity, it is not necessarily the only way to improve labor productivity.

(D) This choice says that there’s a flaw in the cause-effect order of information—that is, that the stated cause of something didn’t actually occur before the effect but rather occurred afterwards. The argument does not reverse the order of cause-effect. It is true that tech improvements (cause) lead to labor productivity (effect) and the conclusion relies on that same order: that P’s higher labor productivity indicates that P’s industries must have been more technologically advanced in the first place.

(E) This choice is describing circular logic, in which the author would have already assumed the conclusion to be true when establishing the premises in the first place. The two premises in the argument, however, are just facts. They do not require the conclusion to be true, nor do they already assume that the conclusion is true.

P

jabhatta2

VP

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Posts: 1381

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

Updated on: 23 Mar 2022, 11:12

avigutman - Per my understanding - (D) is saying the following

Quote:

Y = condition
X = something that happened

After Y already existed, X is the cause of Y

I dont see anything fundamnetally wrong in saying X is the cause of Y (Even after Y already existed)

I ask because many experts are eliminating just on this fact along THAT it is not possible for X to be the cause of Y (even after Y already existed)

'Assigning' a cause AFTER the event has already happened is very common in fact.

Originally posted by jabhatta2 on 23 Mar 2022, 10:27.
Last edited by jabhatta2 on 23 Mar 2022, 11:12, edited 9 times in total.

P

jabhatta2

VP

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Posts: 1381

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

23 Mar 2022, 11:04

For example ...a historian will do this 'AFTER' peace in Western Europe existed.

Y= Peace in Western Europe existed
X= Downfall of Nazi Germany

After peace in Western Europe existed, historians will say that -- X was the reason for Y.

D

avigutman

Tutor

Joined: 17 Jul 2019

Posts: 1307

Location: Canada

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45 Verified score

GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47 Verified score

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

23 Mar 2022, 11:21

Expert Reply

jabhatta2 wrote:

For example ...a historian will do this 'AFTER' peace in Western Europe existed.

Y= Peace in Western Europe existed
X= Downfall of Nazi Germany

After peace in Western Europe existed, historians will say that -- X was the reason for Y.

jabhatta2 Historians saying something after the fact might CAUSE their student to fall asleep, but it won’t cause the fact itself. The fact itself already happened in the past.

Posted from my mobile device

P

jabhatta2

VP

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Posts: 1381

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

23 Mar 2022, 11:27

avigutman wrote:

jabhatta2 wrote:

For example ...a historian will do this 'AFTER' peace in Western Europe existed.

Y= Peace in Western Europe existed
X= Downfall of Nazi Germany

After peace in Western Europe existed, historians will say that -- X was the reason for Y.

jabhatta2 Historians saying something after the fact might CAUSE their student to fall asleep, but it won’t cause the fact itself. The fact itself already happened in the past.

Posted from my mobile device

Sorry avigutman - i dont understand. I think the red must have been another train of thought - students falling asleep ?

D

avigutman

Tutor

Joined: 17 Jul 2019

Posts: 1307

Location: Canada

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45 Verified score

GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47 Verified score

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

23 Mar 2022, 11:34

Expert Reply

jabhatta2 wrote:

avigutman wrote:

jabhatta2 wrote:

For example ...a historian will do this 'AFTER' peace in Western Europe existed.

Y= Peace in Western Europe existed
X= Downfall of Nazi Germany

After peace in Western Europe existed, historians will say that -- X was the reason for Y.

jabhatta2 Historians saying something after the fact might CAUSE their student to fall asleep, but it won’t cause the fact itself. The fact itself already happened in the past.

Posted from my mobile device

Sorry avigutman - i dont understand. I think the red must have been another train of thought - students falling asleep ?

jabhatta2 Just giving you an example of something the historians could have actually caused. They didn’t cause the peace.

P

jabhatta2

VP

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Posts: 1381

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

23 Mar 2022, 14:25

Hi avigutman - please ignore previous q's. I think i shot completely off track. So please ignore anything previously

How would you interpret (D) between these 2 options

X = condition

Option D is implying the following -->

Quote:

(i)
Only after X already existed, the author says
(a) Y leads to X

OR
Option D is implying the following (almost same but slight difference) -->

Quote:

(ii)
Only after X already existed, the author says
(a) Y definitely happened after X
(b) Y leads to X

D

avigutman

Tutor

Joined: 17 Jul 2019

Posts: 1307

Location: Canada

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V45 Verified score

GMAT 2: 780 Q50 V47 Verified score

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

23 Mar 2022, 14:39

Expert Reply

jabhatta2 wrote:

Hi avigutman - please ignore previous q's. I think i shot completely off track. So please ignore anything previously

How would you interpret (D) between these 2 options

X = condition

Option D is implying the following -->

Quote:

(i)
Only after X already existed, the author says
(a) Y leads to X

OR
Option D is implying the following (almost same but slight difference) -->

Quote:

(ii)
Only after X already existed, the author says
(a) Y definitely happened after X
(b) Y leads to X

jabhatta2 it’s the latter. D implies that the author claims that Y, which is the effect of X (so X caused Y), was already in place before X happened.

(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of:

Quote:

something that happened only after the condition already existed.

gmatclubot

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor [#permalink]

23 Mar 2022, 14:39

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor

GMAT Question Banks