GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

It is currently 18 Nov 2018, 12:48

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
Events & Promotions in November
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
28293031123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
2526272829301
Open Detailed Calendar
  • How to QUICKLY Solve GMAT Questions - GMAT Club Chat

     November 20, 2018

     November 20, 2018

     09:00 AM PST

     10:00 AM PST

    The reward for signing up with the registration form and attending the chat is: 6 free examPAL quizzes to practice your new skills after the chat.
  • The winning strategy for 700+ on the GMAT

     November 20, 2018

     November 20, 2018

     06:00 PM EST

     07:00 PM EST

    What people who reach the high 700's do differently? We're going to share insights, tips and strategies from data we collected on over 50,000 students who used examPAL.

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor

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

Hide Tags

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 46
In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Aug 2012, 13:53
14
41
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  5% (low)

Question Stats:

87% (01:30) correct 13% (01:54) wrong based on 3396 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

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.


OG2013 CR #8
OG2017 CR 559 P514
ID - CR05667
Most Helpful Expert Reply
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Aug 2012, 13:06
38
4
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.


Hi, there. I'm happy to help with this. :-)

Of course, this is OG13, CR #8, a new question that did not appear in the OG12. Let's look at this prompt.

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.

Does all this make sense? Please let me know if you have any further questions.

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)

General Discussion
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 15 Jun 2010
Posts: 307
Schools: IE'14, ISB'14, Kellogg'15
WE 1: 7 Yrs in Automobile (Commercial Vehicle industry)
Reviews Badge
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Aug 2012, 14:21
2
1
Flaw in logic Question. Pre-thinking: No other alternate reason exists for the high productivity.
Evaluating answer choices: only option c match the pre-think answer.
_________________

Regards
SD
-----------------------------
Press Kudos if you like my post.
Debrief 610-540-580-710(Long Journey): http://gmatclub.com/forum/from-600-540-580-710-finally-achieved-in-4th-attempt-142456.html

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 107
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.9
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2012, 08:08
Hey Mike, even i got C as an answer, but can we do this using the method of validation? I mean sometimes, in questions like this, i m not able to understand half the options. So , how do i go abt it?
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2012, 20:50
mehulsayani wrote:
Hey Mike, even i got C as an answer, but can we do this using the method of validation? I mean sometimes, in questions like this, i m not able to understand half the options. So , how do i go abt it?


Forgive me, but I am not familiar with that terminology "method of validation" --- what does that mean, and whose term is that?

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)

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 456
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Sep 2012, 21:49
1
mikemcgarry wrote:
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.


Hi, there. I'm happy to help with this. :-)

Of course, this is OG13, CR #8, a new question that did not appear in the OG12. Let's look at this prompt.

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.

Does all this make sense? Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike :-)


Thanks Mike

But can you explain why is e) wrong?
_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Sep 2012, 11:40
5
2
getgyan wrote:
Thanks Mike, But can you explain why is e) wrong?


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.


To "presuppose the truth of the conclusion" means --- the conclusion is a necessary assumption for some piece of the evidence.

Here, conclusion is highly specific --- it concerns only Parland's industries, compared to Vergia's. Anything going on in those two podunk places doesn't necessarily have implications for events anywhere else.

In order for earlier statements to "presuppose the truth of the conclusion", the conclusion has to be a general statement, applicable to large number of situations. That is not at all the case here.

Does all that 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)

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Affiliations: SAE
Joined: 11 Jul 2012
Posts: 456
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Social Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 710 Q49 V37
GPA: 3.5
WE: Project Management (Energy and Utilities)
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 06 Sep 2012, 19:58
mikemcgarry wrote:
getgyan wrote:
Thanks Mike, But can you explain why is e) wrong?


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.


To "presuppose the truth of the conclusion" means --- the conclusion is a necessary assumption for some piece of the evidence.

Here, conclusion is highly specific --- it concerns only Parland's industries, compared to Vergia's. Anything going on in those two podunk places doesn't necessarily have implications for events anywhere else.

In order for earlier statements to "presuppose the truth of the conclusion", the conclusion has to be a general statement, applicable to large number of situations. That is not at all the case here.

Does all that make sense?

Mike :-)


Thanks Mike

But I am still not very clear. Last option has two parts
It makes a distinction
1) that presupposes the truth of the conclusion (conclusion i.e. Parland is technologically more advanced than Vergia) - I find this true
2) that (conclusion) is to be established (Is it not?)


I am new at CR :|
_________________

First Attempt 710 - http://gmatclub.com/forum/first-attempt-141273.html

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2012, 15:15
2
3
getgyan wrote:
mikemcgarry 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.

Thanks Mike

But I am still not very clear. Last option has two parts
It makes a distinction
1) that presupposes the truth of the conclusion (conclusion i.e. Parland is technologically more advanced than Vergia) - I find this true
2) that (conclusion) is to be established (Is it not?)
I am new at CR :|

Dear getgyan,

First of all, if you are new to CR, I highly recommend these blogs:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/introducti ... reasoning/
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/arguments- ... -the-gmat/
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-cr-paradox-questions/
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/formal-log ... reasoning/
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/save-time- ... questions/

Also, your reading of that particular answer choice, (E), is off, and it's a grammar problem, not a logic problem. In the final part of that sentence...
the conclusion that is to be established
...the phrase "that is to be established" is simply a relative clause that modifies the word "conclusion" --- it is in there to make sure everything is hyper-clear, almost to the points of redundancy. There is no extra logic happening in that part of the sentence ---- the entire phrase "the conclusion that is to be established" is just a fancy way of saying "the main conclusion of the argument."
You are reading those two "that"-clauses as if there were in parallel, and they are NOT --- if they were, the would be joined by the word "and" --- instead, the first "that"-clause modifies "distinction" and explains what kind of distinction --- that's where the meat of the logic is ---- and nested within this first "that"-clause is a second, near-redundant, clause simply modifying the word "conclusion."

Grammar supports logic -- that's important to remember both on GMAT CR and on GMAT SC.

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)

Board of Directors
User avatar
P
Joined: 01 Sep 2010
Posts: 3306
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2012, 16:04
Generally speaking, I think that infer too much on GMAT is wrong.

Mike your explanation is amazing but strictly speaking if I read

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

Suddenly jump in my head that here nothing leads us to a distinction. Straight.

Please Mike correct me if I'm wrong :)
_________________

COLLECTION OF QUESTIONS AND RESOURCES
Quant: 1. ALL GMATPrep questions Quant/Verbal 2. Bunuel Signature Collection - The Next Generation 3. Bunuel Signature Collection ALL-IN-ONE WITH SOLUTIONS 4. Veritas Prep Blog PDF Version 5. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Quant Videos
Verbal:1. Verbal question bank and directories by Carcass 2. MGMAT Study Hall Thursdays with Ron Verbal Videos 3. Critical Reasoning_Oldy but goldy question banks 4. Sentence Correction_Oldy but goldy question banks 5. Reading-comprehension_Oldy but goldy question banks

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 07 Sep 2012, 19:51
carcass wrote:
Generally speaking, I think that infer too much on GMAT is wrong.

I agree --- when the GMAT says "infer", it is looking for something that is little more than a hair's breadth away from what is clearly stated in black and white.

carcass wrote:
Mike your explanation is amazing but strictly speaking if I read
E) It makes a distinction that presupposes the truth of the conclusion that is to be established.
Suddenly jump in my head that here nothing leads us to a distinction. Straight.
Please Mike correct me if I'm wrong :)

True, that's an even more basic problem with (E) --- there's really no distinction being made at all, so there certainly can't be a distinction that presupposes the conclusion.
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)

Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 03 Jul 2012
Posts: 107
GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V36
GPA: 3.9
WE: Programming (Computer Software)
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 08 Sep 2012, 05:37
mikemcgarry wrote:
mehulsayani wrote:
Hey Mike, even i got C as an answer, but can we do this using the method of validation? I mean sometimes, in questions like this, i m not able to understand half the options. So , how do i go abt it?


Forgive me, but I am not familiar with that terminology "method of validation" --- what does that mean, and whose term is that?

Mike :-)


I mean in questions like this, sometimes, the terminology used is unfamiliar. So, how should I go about such questions using the method of elimination.
(by method of validation, i meant how to check whether the given option is valid here or not)
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 10 Sep 2012, 13:10
mehulsayani wrote:
I mean in questions like this, sometimes, the terminology used is unfamiliar. So, how should I go about such questions using the method of elimination. (by method of validation, i meant how to check whether the given option is valid here or not)


Dear mehulsayani

The terminology here is quite straightforward. There is no jargon or terminology specific to any particular discipline. This came from the OG and is very much representative of the language you will see on GMAT CR. If this level of analysis is unfamiliar, you need to amp up your reading --- the NYT, the WSJ, and the Economist Magazine.

See these blogs:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/reading-fo ... economist/
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2012/gmat-readi ... ork-times/

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)

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 23 Sep 2008
Posts: 22
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 03 Nov 2012, 20:55
mikemcgarry wrote:
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.


Hi, there. I'm happy to help with this. :-)

Of course, this is OG13, CR #8, a new question that did not appear in the OG12. Let's look at this prompt.

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.

Does all this make sense? Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Mike :-)


Mike,
I am not sure what is wrong with answer choice D.

Does it say that the effect ( Technological advancement) causes the cause (Labor Productivity) ?
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 05 Nov 2012, 09:40
2
1
monsoon1 wrote:
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.

Mike,
I am not sure what is wrong with answer choice D.

Does it say that the effect (Technological advancement) causes the cause (Labor Productivity) ?

The argument is saying that:
CAUSE = technological improvements
EFFECT = increased labor productivity

Choice (D) does not reverse or change the order of fundamental causal relation. What choice (D) does is to introduce time. Choice (D) says:
It takes a condition (= increased labor productivity) to be the effect of something (= technological improvements) that happened only after the condition already existed

First of all, the argument gives absolute no information about time relationships, about what is before what. Furthermore, if technological improvements really are causing increased labor productivity. it simply makes no sense that labor productivity would have increased before any technological improvements. For these reasons, (D) is an unacceptable answer.

Does 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)

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 11 Apr 2013, 10:17
If any of the users of this thread are interested in more practice, here's a set of GMAT CR practice questions recently released:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-criti ... questions/
Enjoy!
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)

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 01 Nov 2013
Posts: 297
GMAT 1: 690 Q45 V39
WE: General Management (Energy and Utilities)
Reviews Badge
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Mar 2015, 06:25
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.



Please explain option D ? It seems so convoluted to me ..
_________________

Our greatest weakness lies in giving up. The most certain way to succeed is always to try just one more time.

I hated every minute of training, but I said, 'Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.-Mohammad Ali

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Mar 2015, 10:15
1
1
samichange wrote:
Please explain option D? It seems so convoluted to me ..

Dear samichange,

I'm happy to respond. :-)

Here's the prompt with choice (D).
8) 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?
(D) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that happened only after the condition already existed.


Yes, this is a bit hard to decipher. Many times, the incorrect answer choices on the CR Argument Structure question have this flavor: they are speaking at a very abstract level.

A condition is just some set of circumstances we find in the real world. It's anything that's factual. For example,
"In Parland's industries, labor productivity is significantly higher than it is in Vergia's industries."

To take a condition to be the effect of something ---- suppose I take the condition of a drought in California to be the effect of global climate change. Then I am saying global climate change is a CAUSE, and the drought in California is an EFFECT. To take a condition P to be the effect of Q: that is equivalent to the interpretation that Q caused P, that Q is the CAUSE and P is the EFFECT.

Now, my argument that "Q cause P" is going to run into trouble if it turns out that P was going on before Q ever existed. For example, suppose we have the following exchange:
Person A: "The price of tomatoes is very high. This must be due to the documentary last summer on the health benefits of lycopene, found in tomatoes."
Person B: "The price of tomatoes was high well before last summer."

Person B makes a devastating objection to Person A's argument.
Person A takes a condition (the high price of tomatoes) to be the effect of something (the documentary) that happened only after the condition (the high price of tomatoes) already existed. In other words, tomato prices were already before the documentary aired, so the documentary cannot possibly be the sole cause of the high price of the tomatoes.

For more practice with these question, see:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2013/gmat-cr-di ... questions/

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)

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 06 Jul 2015
Posts: 8
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Nov 2015, 01:40
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
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 14 Nov 2015, 13:26
2
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:
http://magoosh.com/gmat/2014/gmat-criti ... knowledge/

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)

GMAT Club Bot
Re: In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor &nbs [#permalink] 14 Nov 2015, 13:26

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 25 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

In virtually any industry, technological improvements increase labor

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


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

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

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.