It is clear that the nation’s labor force will diminish during the nex

Question

Competition Mode Question

It is clear that the nation’s labor force will diminish during the next 20 years. Population growth in our country reached its apex in 1961, and by the late 1960s more heads of households were employed in this country than ever before. This growth rate has slackened significantly, and by 1995 the number of households overall will be reduced, thus decreasing the number of potential employees in the work force.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

A. Employers who do not wish to scale back the size of their operations will have to pursue qualified employees more aggressively after 1995.

B. Experts predict that after a downturn in the quality of employee benefits during the 1980s and early 1990s, the overall quality of benefits offered to employees will rise by 1995.

C. The proportional representation of heads of households in the labor market increased between the years 1988 and 1992.

D. It has become progressively harder since the 1960s for households to subsist on a single earner’s pay, so an increasing proportion of the labor market are those who are not heads of households.

E. By 1995 there will be far more people managing their own businesses than there have ever been previously.
 +1 Kudos

jpan · Answer

IMO answer is D

Premise : By late 1960s, more heads of households were employed in the country than ever before. 
Premise: By 1961, the population reached an apex in the country.
Premise: Population growth rate has slackened and by 1995, number of households overall will reduce.
Conclusion: Since this will decrease potential employees, nation's labour force will reduce in the next 20 years.

To weaken the conclusion, we need to prove the despite the decrease in number of overall households, the workforce will not decrease. We can do this by using D, which says that more than one member per household can work.

Posted from my mobile device

Raxit85 · Answer

Premise 1: It is clear that the nation’s labor force will diminish during the next 20 years. Population growth in our country reached its apex in 1961, and by the late 1960s more heads of households were employed in this country than ever before.
Premise 2: This growth rate has slackened significantly, and 
Effect (potential): by 1995 the number of households overall will be reduced, thus decreasing the number of potential employees in the work force.

We need to prove that there won't be overall number of households reduction by 1995 or no decreasing the number of potential employees in the work force.

A. Employers who do not wish to scale back the size of their operations will have to pursue qualified employees more aggressively after 1995. - This option disproves the effect that there will not be reduction in no. of potential workforce because it states that more manpower will be required if employers who do not wish to scale back will recruit people more aggressively after 1995. Other option do not weaken the potential effect.

Imo. A

debjit1990 · Answer

Ans: D

It has become progressively harder since the 1960s for households to subsist on a single earner’s pay, so an increasing proportion of the labor market are those who are not heads of households.

Premise says-->population growth apex--more heads of the family member joined
growth rate has slackened--household households overall will be reduced
conclusion:decreasing the number of potential employees in the work force

D says an alternate cause that increases the no of employees.

Archit3110 · Answer

conclusion of arguement ;

This growth rate has slackened significantly, and by 1995 the number of households overall will be reduced, thus decreasing the number of potential employees in the work force.

to weaken the conclusion ; IMO D is correct

It has become progressively harder since the 1960s for households to subsist on a single earner’s pay, so an increasing proportion of the labor market are those who are not heads of households.

option D provides an alternate reasoning of why the head of households wont decrease

It is clear that the nation’s labor force will diminish during the next 20 years. Population growth in our country reached its apex in 1961, and by the late 1960s more heads of households were employed in this country than ever before. This growth rate has slackened significantly, and by 1995 the number of households overall will be reduced, thus decreasing the number of potential employees in the work force.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

A. Employers who do not wish to scale back the size of their operations will have to pursue qualified employees more aggressively after 1995.

B. Experts predict that after a downturn in the quality of employee benefits during the 1980s and early 1990s, the overall quality of benefits offered to employees will rise by 1995.

C. The proportional representation of heads of households in the labor market increased between the years 1988 and 1992.

D. It has become progressively harder since the 1960s for households to subsist on a single earner’s pay, so an increasing proportion of the labor market are those who are not heads of households.

E. By 1995 there will be far more people managing their own businesses than there have ever been previously.

exc4libur · Answer

ARGUMENT
  pop growth reached apex in 60's and more heads of households were employed than ever before;
  this growth rate has slackened and by 95 the number of households will decrease;
  potential workforce will also decrease.

WEAKEN
(A) we don't know the who are these employers and what stake they have in the workforce;
(B) predictions don't necessary come true, and we don't know if more quality = more workforce;
(C) this could strengthen;
(E) but how many manage their own businesses? 2, 3, 100% people?

Ans (D)  more people will need to join workforce!

unraveled · Answer

It is clear that the nation’s labor force will diminish during the next 20 years. Population growth in our country reached its apex in 1961, and by the late 1960s more heads of households were employed in this country than ever before. This growth rate has slackened significantly, and by 1995 the number of households overall will be reduced, thus decreasing the number of potential employees in the work force.
Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn above?

Crux of the argument is that employees would decrease because the number f households will decrease due to reduced pace of population growth.

A. Employers who do not wish to scale back the size of their operations will have to pursue qualified employees more aggressively after 1995. - WRONG. Quality of employees is not discussed so this goes off the path. Also, pursuing employees after 1995 is out of scope.

B. Experts predict that after a downturn in the quality of employee benefits during the 1980s and early 1990s, the overall quality of benefits offered to employees will rise by 1995. - WRONG. Similar to option A, it goes off-track.

C. The proportional representation of heads of households in the labor market increased between the years 1988 and 1992. - WRONG. It does not elaborate anything.

D. It has become progressively harder since the 1960s for households to subsist on a single earner’s pay, so an increasing proportion of the labor market are those who are not heads of households. - CORRECT. Since it has become harder for families to survive on single pay, other members of the households have started entering the labor market, increasing the work force. It goes against the decrease anticipated in the argument.

E. By 1995 there will be far more people managing their own businesses than there have ever been previously. - WRONG. Similar to option C it does not elaborates anything only that relative to 1960s more number of people would be into their own business than labor force.

+1 Kudos

IMO Answer D.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

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

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

It is clear that the nation’s labor force will diminish during the nex

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

It is clear that the nation’s labor force will diminish during the nex

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards