Economist: If the economy grows stronger, employment will increase, an

Here is my understanding of A:

Upon negation, the assumption should destroy the conclusion completely. UnlikeB, A has some loopholes...

Most of the new jobs that are created will be in fields that pay well-> means at least some of the jobs are in the fields that pay well and those jobs may be suitable for Daycare employees.

Kavyathach2, here's how you can simplify the problem:
there are these parents who are unemployed but will find jobs when the economy improves. So, they need someone to take care of the kids. And these people will be in shortage because a bunch of babysitters have gotten actual jobs now.

Now, does it matter that the jobs they get should pay well? No. Even if they don't pay well, they will still need people to help take care of the kids. This is not a MUST BE TRUE thing for the argument.

Economist: If the economy grows stronger, employment will increase, and hence more parents will need to find day care for their young children. Unfortunately, in a stronger economy many day-care workers will quit to take better-paying jobs in other fields. Therefore, a stronger economy is likely to make it much more difficult to find day care.

Which one of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?

(A)  If the economy grows stronger, most of the new jobs that are created will be in fields that pay well. 


(B)  If the economy grows stronger, the number of new day-care workers will not be significantly greater than the number of day-care workers who move to better-paying
jobs in other fields. 


(C)  If the economy grows stronger, the number of workers employed by day-care centers is likely to decrease. 


(D)  The shortage of day care for children is unlikely to worsen unless employment increases and many day-care center employees quit to take better-paying jobs in other
fields. 

(E)  The total number of young children in day-care centers will decrease if the cost of day care increases significantly. 


LSAT

KUDOS will be Appreciated

Prethinking : Day Care services will not offer the same / better remuneration like other jobs when the Economy strengthens.

Non, but (B) matches our pre thinking assumption, Hence Correct Answer must be (B)

B

Economy grows - employment increase

Strong economy - daycare workers will get new jobs in new field

Conclusion
Stronger economy - no day care worker available

Falsification conclusion
Strong economy - so many day care workers required with better pay

Negate option between A n B

B - goes with prethinking




Sent from my iPhone using GMAT Club Forum

Economist: If the economy grows stronger, employment will increase, and hence more parents will need to find day care for their young children. Unfortunately, in a stronger economy many day-care workers will quit to take better-paying jobs in other fields. Therefore, a stronger economy is likely to make it much more difficult to find day care.

Which one of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?


Question Type: Assumption

Premise 1: If the economy grows stronger, employment will increase, and hence more parents will need to find day care for their young children

Premise 2: In a stronger economy many day-care workers will quit to take better-paying jobs in other fields

Conclusion: Therefore, a stronger economy is likely to make it much more difficult to find day care.

Argument Analysis:

Stronger Economy-----> employment increase-----> more parents need to find day care for their children

Stronger Economy-------> day care workers will find better paying jobs in other fields

Stronger Economy------->_________________-------->make it much more difficult to find day care

We need to fill the blank with a possible cause that will make finding a day care difficult.

The probable reasons can be No new recruitment in day care facilities, shortage of employees with requisite day care skills, lesser pay in day care compared to other fields or day care is not a profitable business in a stronger economy for some valid reason, which we don't know.


(A)  If the economy grows stronger, most of the new jobs that are created will be in fields that pay well. 
 - Incorrect, doesn't lead to the conclusion.

(B)  If the economy grows stronger, the number of new day-care workers will not be significantly greater than the number of day-care workers who move to better-paying
jobs in other fields. 
- Correct. Since it says that there is a shortage of new day care workers compared to the requirement of day care workers to handle the increased demand for day care. We can reverse the answer choice & check that it weakens the conclusion, as the answer will mean surplus of day care workers.

(C)  If the economy grows stronger, the number of workers employed by day-care centers is likely to decrease. 
Incorrect, although it is a very close, we do not know whether the decrease could mean that day care centers will restrict the # of children they can handle, making availability of day cares difficult to find. It could also mean, day care workers were in excess & they are now being optimized by day care centers. In any case i would choose this choice on Exam day, sicne the prompt doesn't mention"day care centers".

(D)  The shortage of day care for children is unlikely to worsen unless employment increases and many day-care center employees quit to take better-paying jobs in other
fields. 
 - IMO this is already stated in the argument & hence cannot be an assumption. As an assumption is not explicitly stated in the argument but is necessary for the argument to be valid.

(E)  The total number of young children in day-care centers will decrease if the cost of day care increases significantly. 
 - Out of scope


Answer B.



Thanks,
GyM

Conclusion: stronger economy is likely to make it much more difficult to find day care....... tone is not very strong as "likely" is used
Why??
[Argument] 1. many day-care workers will quit to take better-paying jobs in "other field"--- to be noted "other field"
2. employment increase ---- "more people getting employed"

Lets negate conclusion: Not difficult to find day care
but how to say that...
[What if] there are people who can do this job and they are more in number than those guys who left for high paying jobs
[what if] Few people are passionate enough to care for child and are not so much fixated on money

For Assumption ---- think both [What if] scenarios won't exist
If we do that you will come to Option B, which is right answer

Also since we talked about tone of the conclusion, please be mindful of some answers where tone is strong, not a must one in assumption but will be helpful to be aware of the same

Please hit kudos if you like the style of answer.

Hey nightblade354

Please merge this post https://gmatclub.com/forum/economist-if ... 73278.html along with the current question

Thanks!

Merged topics. gmat1393 good catch.

AshutoshB, please do not double post.

Economist: If the economy grows stronger, employment will increase, and hence more parents will need to find day care for their young children. Unfortunately, in a stronger economy many day-care workers will quit to take better-paying jobs in other fields. Therefore, a stronger economy is likely to make it much more difficult to find day care.

Which one of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?

(A) If the economy grows stronger, most of the new jobs that are created will be in fields that pay well. (Out of scope. An assumption must be true for the conclusion to hold. If we negate this option, it will not break the conclusion)

(B) If the economy grows stronger, the number of new day-care workers will not be significantly greater than the number of day-care workers who move to better-paying jobs in other fields. Correct. Since if the number of new day-care workers will be significantly greater than the number of day-care workers who move to better-paying jobs then it will not be difficult to find daycare

(C) If the economy grows stronger, the number of workers employed by day-care centers is likely to decrease.(Already given in the passage)

(D) The shortage of day care for children is unlikely to worsen unless employment increases and many day-care center employees quit to take better-paying jobs in other fields.(a restatement from the argument/already stated in the passage)

(E) The total number of young children in day-care centers will decrease if the cost of day care increases significantly.(out of scope/irrelevant)

If I replace the ''many'' with ''most'', would then Option B be still correct?

Regards
Vighnesh

Why can't a strengthener also be an assumption?

Premise:
If the economy grows stronger, employment will increase, and hence more parents will need to find day care for their young children.
+
Unfortunately, in a stronger economy many day-care workers will quit to take better-paying jobs in other fields.

Conclusion:
Therefore, a stronger economy is likely to make it much more difficult to find day care.

Which one of the following is an assumption the economist's argument requires?

(A) If the economy grows stronger, most of the new jobs that are created will be in fields that pay well.

Our concern is ''Better paying jobs'' NOT ''pay well''

(B) If the economy grows stronger, the number of new day-care workers will not be significantly greater than the number of day-care workers who move to better-paying jobs in other fields.

NEGATION: If the economy grows stronger, the number of new day-care workers WILL BE significantly greater than the number of day-care workers who move to better-paying jobs in other fields.

WRECKS the PREMISE TO CONCLUSION CHAIN

(C) If the economy grows stronger, the number of workers employed by day-care centers is likely to decrease.

We are concerned about day-care workers, this option is talking about ''day-care centers''

(D) The shortage of day care for children is unlikely to worsen unless employment increases and many day-care center employees quit to take better-paying jobs in other fields.

If not employment increases and many day-care center employees quit to take better-paying jobs in other fields --> the shortage of day care for children is unlikely: Mistaken NEGATION of premise to conclusion. Doesn't talk about the Premise --> Conclusion.
Rather it talks about: NO PREMISE --> NO CONCLUSION

Negation of (D): Even if not employment increases and many day-care center employees quit to take better-paying jobs in other fields --> the shortage of day care for children is NOT unlikely

(E) The total number of young children in day-care centers will decrease if the cost of day care increases significantly.

Why do we have to bother about the cost?