Between 1995 and 2000, the minimum wage in

Although, D seems legit, there is one problem, the statement says, "the situation changed"....
the change might be less than price increase of 5%(option c) ...
justified? , or am i being paranoid....?

Wages Increased + Inflation (Low) = Workers not happy

The reason may be something such that their expensses (Somewhere) increased considerable, the same has been pointed out in option (D), increase in Property tax will lead to less disposable income, hence correct Answer must be (D).

Hi Experts,

Hope you are doing well.

Request you to look into this argument.

Between 1995 and 2000, the minimum wage in Laconia increased by 15 percent. However, even though all Laconian minimum-wage workers were subject to the increase, and inflation during this period was less than 3 percent, most Laconians who worked for minimum wage during this period were no more comfortable in 2000 than they were in 1995, primarily because_______.

(D)Laconian minimum-wage workers did not have to pay any property or income taxes in 1995, a situation which had changed by 2000.

(E)most elderly people in Laconia received an insignificant benefit, which was not sufficient to make a living, and their children who often worked for minimum wage had to support them financially.

As the argument clearly specifies that most Laconians workers were no more comfortable with the increase in 2000 because ______

I think answer option E is more suitable because answer option is also talking about most elderly people who did not recieve significant benefits and whom children were often worker. However, the OA is option D.

I would request you to look into this matter and clear my ambiguities.

While comparing D and C, how can we be certain whether the property and income taxes that were not present in 1995 had an effect greater than 5% or less on the minimum wage of the workers by 2000?

Is it not a pure assumption that property and income taxes are subject to a higher percentage increase?
Because it could also be below 5% as it was 0% in 1995.

Requesting an expert's reply.

Thanks in advance.

Option E does not give any information on whether the elderly people were dependant on their children in 1995 or that this situation arose in the year 2000 or before. It may have been the case that elderly people were equally dependant in both 1995 and 2000. The ambiguity and lack of timeline make the option incorrect. However, option D clearly highlights the difference in the situation in 1995 and 2000 that could have affected the workers.
Hence, the answer is D.

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.