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. ID - CR05667 Argument Evaluation Situation Technological improvements in nearly every industry increase labor productivity, which is the output of goods and services per person-hour worked. Because labor productivity is significantly higher in Parland than Vergia, Parland's industries are, in general, more technologically advanced than Vergia's. Reasoning To which criticism is the argument most vulnerable? Though one factor, such as technological advancements, may lead to greater labor productivity, it may not be the only such factor, or even a necessary factor, leading to great labor productivity. Therefore, the mere fact that one region's labor is more productive than another's is not sufficient to establish that the former region is more technologically advanced than the latter region is. (A) The conclusion is not merely a paraphrase of the pieces of information provided in its support. Indeed, the problem with the argument is that the conclusion goes too far beyond what the premises merit. (B) The premises of the argument are not inconsistent with one another. (C) Correct . This accurately describes the flaw in the argument because the reasons given in the argument for its conclusion would be good reasons only if there were no other plausible explanations for Parland's greater labor productivity. (D) The argument does not mention how long Parland has had more productive labor, or when technological improvements would have occurred. (E) Neither of the premises contains anything that presupposes the conclusion to be true.

Last visit was: 19 Nov 2025, 11:27

It is currently 19 Nov 2025, 11:27

Toolkit

Critical Reasoning (CR)

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.

Go to My Error Log Learn more

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Nov 20
UCR MBA Impact - Live Q&A with UCR AdCom & Student
07:30 AM PST
-
08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 22
GMAT RC Masterclass
11:00 AM IST
-
01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment
Nov 23
Conquer Algebra on the GMAT Focus Edition
11:00 AM IST
-
01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease.
Nov 25
Try OnDemand GMAT Masterclass
10:00 AM EST
-
11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.

Back to Forum

Create Topic

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor

1 2 3

jabhatta2

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Last visit: 21 Apr 2023

Posts: 1,294

Own Kudos:

317

Given Kudos: 188

Posts: 1,294

Kudos: 317

23 Mar 2022, 15:24

Kudos

Bookmarks

avigutman

...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.

avigutman - In the pink phrase - is the "that phrase" a noun modifier to 'something' ?

So if i was to rephrase (D) in the active voice :

something {that happened only after the condition already existed} lead to the condition

Instead i thought sentence was strucutured this way --

Quote:

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

(only after the condition already existed) was being adverbial and was referring to the entire previous clause

avigutman

Tutor

Joined: 17 Jul 2019

Last visit: 30 Sep 2025

Posts: 1,293

Own Kudos:

1,931

Given Kudos: 66

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

Expert

Expert reply

Schools: NYU Stern (WA)

GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V45 Verified score

Posts: 1,293

Kudos: 1,931

23 Mar 2022, 17:24

Kudos

Bookmarks

jabhatta2

i thought sentence was strucutured this way --

Quote:

Ah, jabhatta2, so you thought the criticism in D was about the timing at which the argument was made.
That interpretation wouldn't be a criticism under any circumstance. I can't imagine any argument to which a valid counter is that the argument was made at an inappropriate, illogical, or impossible timing. If you did think that your interpretation was a valid criticism of some argument, we should dig into that.

If you look at the five answer choices, each and every one of them is an actual criticism to an actual argument. Four of the answer choices simply aren't valid criticisms of this particular argument, but they'd be valid criticisms of other arguments.

In fact, if the GMAT says: "The argument is most vulnerable to which of the following criticisms?", you can rest assured that the following criticisms really are valid criticisms of arguments.

jabhatta2

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Last visit: 21 Apr 2023

Posts: 1,294

Own Kudos:

317

Given Kudos: 188

Posts: 1,294

Kudos: 317

12 May 2022, 09:45

Kudos

Bookmarks

Hi AndrewN quick questions on (E)

Quote:

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?

(E) It makes a distinction [that presupposes the truth of the conclusion {that is to be established}]

Q1) can i re-phrase the word distinction in (E) to contrast instead ?

Q2) When (E) refers to '....conclusion {that is to be established}' specifically

- Is this referring to the same conclusion in the green in the argument OR another conclusion NOT MENTIONED IN THE ARGUMENT whatsoever ?

AndrewN

Volunteer Expert

Joined: 16 May 2019

Last visit: 29 Mar 2025

Posts: 3,502

Own Kudos:

7,511

Given Kudos: 500

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 3,502

Kudos: 7,511

12 May 2022, 12:10

Kudos

Bookmarks

jabhatta2

Hi AndrewN quick questions on (E)

Quote:

Hello, jabhatta2. I think of a distinction not as a contrast per se, but as a feature or characteristic that allows someone to tell two (or more) things apart that may seem similar. For instance, if two identical-looking black t-shirts were side by side, you might look to the clothing label (to see whether two different brands made the shirts) as a way to distinguish between the two garments. If you were knowledgeable enough, you might also look at the materials used or the way each shirt was sewn, but you get my point. In short, I would leave the word distinction alone.

The reference to the conclusion in answer choice (E) can only be read, within the confines of this exam, as the one that is on the screen, not to some other unstated conclusion. Basically, (E) is saying that some distinction in the argument itself assumes that the conclusion is true already. If you can find such a distinction in the last line of the passage, then you have spotted something I cannot.

Thank you for thinking to ask.

- Andrew

jabhatta2

Joined: 15 Dec 2016

Last visit: 21 Apr 2023

Posts: 1,294

Own Kudos:

317

Given Kudos: 188

Posts: 1,294

Kudos: 317

12 May 2022, 17:13

Kudos

Bookmarks

AndrewN

jabhatta2

Hi AndrewN quick questions on (E)

Quote:

Thank you AndrewN

Just confirming - this distinction / feature / characteristic DOESNT have to be found in the last line of passage only right, as you mention in the purple ? I presume this distinction / feature / characteristic CAN BE even in the first line of the passage.

I cannot find this this distinction / feature / characteristic **anywhere** in the passage, not just the last line

AndrewN

Volunteer Expert

Joined: 16 May 2019

Last visit: 29 Mar 2025

Posts: 3,502

Own Kudos:

7,511

[1]

Given Kudos: 500

Expert

Expert reply

Posts: 3,502

Kudos: 7,511

[1]

12 May 2022, 17:26

Kudos

Bookmarks

jabhatta2

Precisely, jabhatta2, because such a distinction is nowhere to be found. I referred to the last line earlier because it contains the argument, of course, the one in question. If you were unsure about this distinction, though, you could still use the latter half of the answer choice to disqualify (E). We have already discussed this notion of presupposing the truth. If you can find something that is easily debatable, use that as an entry point against a given answer choice.

Thank you for following up.

- Andrew

MalachiKeti

Joined: 01 Sep 2024

Last visit: 27 Jan 2025

Posts: 131

Own Kudos:

Given Kudos: 99

Posts: 131

Kudos: 71

13 Sep 2024, 20:35

Kudos

Bookmarks

AjiteshArun need help in an official question

Is C correct because of the following
If x, then y
technological innovation is a sufficient condition for labour productivity
But the conclusion ties it up as
If Y then X
Labour productivity is sufficient for technological innovation - where as it is just necessary - multitude other reasons could have happened.

So its a mistaken reversal.

AjiteshArun

Major Poster

Joined: 15 Jul 2015

Last visit: 18 Nov 2025

Posts: 5,949

Own Kudos:

5,080

Given Kudos: 732

Location: India

GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83 Verified score

GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V169 Verified score

Expert

Expert reply

GMAT Focus 1: 715 Q83 V90 DI83 Verified score

GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V51 Verified score

GRE 1: Q170 V169 Verified score

Posts: 5,949

Kudos: 5,080

15 Sep 2024, 21:08

Kudos

Bookmarks

MalachiKeti

Hi MalachiKeti,

Yes, your reasoning is correct.

If we have X → Y, we can't automatically go Y → X. As you pointed out, there can be many other reasons for the increase in labour productivity in this particular situation.

A_Nishith

Joined: 29 Aug 2023

Last visit: 12 Nov 2025

Posts: 455

Own Kudos:

199

Given Kudos: 16

Posts: 455

Kudos: 199

13 Oct 2025, 19:10

Kudos

Bookmarks

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

We are told that technological improvements cause increases in labor productivity --- to use the language of formal logic, we know that technological improvements are sufficient for an increase in labor productivity. This is quite different from saying that: technological improvements are necessary for an increase in labor productivity. In other words, the argument is implicitly assuming that absolutely nothing else ---- labor conditions, local economic conditions, difference in shipping cost for materials or sale, etc. etc. --- would affect labor productivity. That's crazy. All kinds of other things also could affect labor productivity. Technological improvements are sufficient but not necessary for an increase in labor productivity.
Parland has higher labor productivity than does Vergia. One possible explanation could be a technological superiority, but again, there are a dozen other things that might differ between the two regions and might account for the difference in labor productivity.
The answer that best summarizes this flaw is (C) --- assuming that one particular cause is the only possible cause, or in other words, assuming that a sufficient cause is thereby also a necessary cause.

Answer: C