NEW HERE? LEARN MORE
closeclose
Last visit was: 26 Apr 2024, 11:11 It is currently 26 Apr 2024, 11:11
Decision Tracker
My Rewards
New posts
New comers' posts

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.
Go to My Error Log Learn more
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2)

SORT BY:
Date
Kudos
 1   2   
Tags:
Find Similar Topics 
Show Tags
Hide Tags
User avatar
S
AkshayKS21
Manager
Manager
Joined: 02 May 2016
Posts: 62
Own Kudos [?]: 161 [57]
Given Kudos: 207
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship
GRE 1: Q163 V154
WE:Information Technology (Computer Software)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 28 Dec 2017, 10:20
4
Kudos
53
Bookmarks
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

45% (medium)

Question Stats:

70% (02:00) correct 30% (02:28) wrong based on 2123 sessions
Hide Show timer Statistics
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

(A) The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.

(B) Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.

(C) At any given time, people who are currently employed have the best chance of being offered a job that will give them an income significantly greater than government assistance would give them.

(D) The financial assistance that the government provides to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage.

(E) People sometimes choose a job for reasons that have nothing to do with the financial benefits it offers.

Same passage with different stem question: LINK

Show Spoiler
I faced this question in GMATPrep Exam 3, but the answer choices were quite different from what stated here.
Attached is image for reference.
Needless to say, I got it wrong :P

Attachment:
LedlandUnemployed.jpg
LedlandUnemployed.jpg [ 293.07 KiB | Viewed 21409 times ]
ShowHide Answer
Official Answer
C

Originally posted by AkshayKS21 on 16 Jun 2017, 05:31.
Last edited by broall on 28 Dec 2017, 10:20, edited 2 times in total.
Reformatted question
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
P
HaileyCusimano
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 15 Aug 2017
Posts: 78
Own Kudos [?]: 597 [12]
Given Kudos: 75
GMAT 1: 780 Q49 V51
WE:Education (Education)
Send PM
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   10 May 2019, 12:49
9
Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
AkshayKS21 wrote:
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

(A) The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.

(B) Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.

(C) At any given time, people who are currently employed have the best chance of being offered a job that will give them an income significantly greater than government assistance would give them.

(D) The financial assistance that the government provides to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage.

(E) People sometimes choose a job for reasons that have nothing to do with the financial benefits it offers.

Same passage with different stem question: LINK

Show Spoiler
I faced this question in GMATPrep Exam 3, but the answer choices were quite different from what stated here.
Attached is image for reference.
Needless to say, I got it wrong :P

Attachment:
LedlandUnemployed.jpg


Hi Ritwick91 (and sayan640 ) - Happy to chime in here!

In this argument, we draw the conclusion that "unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement" basically because according to the argument - the incentive would be a wash - as it would make up for any amount below unemployment - but nothing beyond that point. So, individuals wouldn't be financially incentivized to take on jobs that would (after the supplement) pay the same amount as unemployment.

Answer choice (C) gives us a reason the incentive may be helpful despite this - as it would allow individuals to take on lower-paying jobs in hopes of advancing to higher paying jobs, without risking taking on a job that pays below the unemployment level. So, despite not bringing the individuals to a higher pay level than unemployment - it puts them in a position to obtain a higher paying job without the disadvantage of a lower-than-unemployment job in the meantime. This provides a financial incentive to said individuals.

Answer choice (D) on the other hand, doesn't matter to us, since it is irrelevant to those who would earn above the unemployment assistance level, and for those who earn below that level - it is a wash (as mentioned above). So, it doesn't weaken the conclusion that "unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement" - since to do so, we need a reason unemployed people might have some financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement. (C) gives this to us, while (D) does not.

I hope this helps!
User avatar
G
fmik7894
Manager
Manager
Joined: 30 Jan 2017
Posts: 64
Own Kudos [?]: 328 [7]
Given Kudos: 61
Location: India
Schools: ISB '19
GMAT 1: 630 Q47 V29
GMAT 2: 660 Q47 V34
GMAT 3: 730 Q49 V40
GPA: 3.9
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   22 Nov 2017, 05:04
5
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
GMATNinja

Please review my reasoning for eliminating option D:

Let's assign numbers to the scenario mentioned in the argument:

1. Current income of unemployed adults: $0
2. Government assistance provided to unemployed adults: $100
3. Salary of Jobs below the government supplement: $60
5. New Government assistance: $40

Option D : The financial assistance that the government provides ($40) to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage ($60).

SO WHAT ? The sum total of what the unemployed people get under the new scheme is still $100. It strengthens the conclusion of the argument that THERE IS NO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE STILL GET $100 in total

Hence, we can eliminate option D
General Discussion
User avatar
S
aceGMAT21
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Status:Aiming MBA!!
Posts: 87
Own Kudos [?]: 232 [3]
Given Kudos: 90
Location: India
Schools: Rotman '20 Fisher '20 Kelley '20 NUS '20 ISB '19 Imperial '20
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
GPA: 3.75
WE:Web Development (Consulting)
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   21 Nov 2017, 23:10
2
Kudos
1
Bookmarks
AkshayKS21 wrote:
I faced this question in GMATPrep Exam 3, but the answer choices were quite different from what stated here.
Attached is image for reference.
Needless to say, I got it wrong :P


the conclusion -- unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

(D) The financial assistance that the government provides to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage.

As per my understanding, option D also weakens somewhat, but C is the better one. As we are looking for the best option out of the five. My reasoning for option D,

If the government provides financial assistance which is less than the average starting wage to people with no other source of income, then such people would be more interested in doing the job rather than relying on the financial assistance itself. Also, if you notice carefully, the conclusion is about the UNEMPLOYED PEOPLE but we do not know whether they have some other source of income or not. Unemployment does not mean that THEY WILL definitely does not have the other sources of INCOME AS WELL. So, if the unemployed people are not having the other sources of income as well, then the conclusion is strongly weakened. But if the unemployed people are having some other sources of income, then the starting wage may not seem lucrative to such people even if it is more than the financial assistance. So, option C is the clear winner.

GMATNinja, can you please review my reasoning for option D, the one mentioned in the GMATPrep snapshot just above my post and not the one in the existing post on the GMATClub.

Thanks.
-aceGMAT21.
avatar
S
SidJainGMAT
Intern
Intern
Joined: 09 Nov 2016
Posts: 33
Own Kudos [?]: 47 [2]
Given Kudos: 17
Location: India
Send PM
Reviews Badge
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   24 Dec 2017, 09:52
2
Bookmarks
Hi Verbal Experts,

Could you please elaborate on why option D over here is wrong with an example?
I am a bit confused between C & D.

Thanks in advance! :-)
User avatar
S
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 238
Own Kudos [?]: 984 [4]
Given Kudos: 1021
GMAT 1: 760 Q48 V47
GMAT 2: 770 Q49 V48
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V47
GMAT 4: 790 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q168 V167

GRE 2: Q170 V169
Send PM
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   Updated on: 29 Dec 2017, 16:50
2
Kudos
2
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

(A) The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.

(B) Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.

(C) At any given time, people who are currently employed have the best chance of being offered a job that will give them an income significantly greater than government assistance would give them.

(D) The financial assistance that the government provides to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage.

(E) People sometimes choose a job for reasons that have nothing to do with the financial benefits it offers.


Edit: Moderator Editorial Note: this is a different topic from https://gmatclub.com/forum/editorial-in ... ml#p281146 due to the answer choices.

Originally posted by GMATNinjaTwo on 28 Dec 2017, 09:34.
Last edited by GMATNinjaTwo on 29 Dec 2017, 16:50, edited 3 times in total.
updated link in Mod. Editorial Note
User avatar
S
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Joined: 20 Nov 2016
Posts: 238
Own Kudos [?]: 984 [1]
Given Kudos: 1021
GMAT 1: 760 Q48 V47
GMAT 2: 770 Q49 V48
GMAT 3: 770 Q50 V47
GMAT 4: 790 Q50 V51
GRE 1: Q168 V167

GRE 2: Q170 V169
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   28 Dec 2017, 09:52
1
Kudos
Expert Reply
GMATNinjaTwo wrote:
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

(A) The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.

(B) Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.

(C) At any given time, people who are currently employed have the best chance of being offered a job that will give them an income significantly greater than government assistance would give them.

(D) The financial assistance that the government provides to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage.

(E) People sometimes choose a job for reasons that have nothing to do with the financial benefits it offers.

SidJainGMAT wrote:
Hi Verbal Experts,

Could you please elaborate on why option D over here is wrong with an example?
I am a bit confused between C & D.

Thanks in advance! :-)

Note that this question is similar to another based on the same passage from EP1: https://gmatclub.com/forum/editorial-in ... 40473.html. Choices C, D, and E are slightly different.

As for choice (D) in this version, please refer to the following explanation by fmik7894:

fmik7894 wrote:
GMATNinja

Please review my reasoning for eliminating option D:

Let's assign numbers to the scenario mentioned in the argument:

1. Current income of unemployed adults: $0
2. Government assistance provided to unemployed adults: $100
3. Salary of Jobs below the government supplement: $60
5. New Government assistance: $40

Option D : The financial assistance that the government provides ($40) to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage ($60).

SO WHAT ? The sum total of what the unemployed people get under the new scheme is still $100. It strengthens the conclusion of the argument that THERE IS NO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE STILL GET $100 in total

Hence, we can eliminate option D


Thanks fmik7894, your reasoning was spot on!
avatar
B
bpdulog
Manager
Manager
Joined: 14 Aug 2012
Posts: 56
Own Kudos [?]: 16 [2]
Given Kudos: 221
Location: United States
Schools: MBA@UNC"21 (A$) Rice PMBA '21 (A) USC MBA.PM '22 (A) McDonough Evening'22 (A) NYU Stern (A) Tepper '21 (A)
GMAT 1: 620 Q43 V33
GMAT 2: 690 Q47 V38
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   19 Oct 2018, 10:28
2
Kudos
fmik7894 wrote:
GMATNinja

Please review my reasoning for eliminating option D:

Let's assign numbers to the scenario mentioned in the argument:

1. Current income of unemployed adults: $0
2. Government assistance provided to unemployed adults: $100
3. Salary of Jobs below the government supplement: $60
5. New Government assistance: $40

Option D : The financial assistance that the government provides ($40) to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage ($60).

SO WHAT ? The sum total of what the unemployed people get under the new scheme is still $100. It strengthens the conclusion of the argument that THERE IS NO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE STILL GET $100 in total

Hence, we can eliminate option D


I am still not entirely sold on C (I picked D). Your example assumes that the recipient receives 2 types of assistance, $100 and $40. I'm not sure where this came from since the passage states that unemployed receive government assistance. So if government assistance is $100, and starting wages are $60, then the government will pay $40 to those who are employed to make it even. However, if the starting wage is $120, which is higher than the $100 of government assistance, then isn't there financial incentive to work?

With C, the advantage is clearly to those who already have a job. What if there is a tight job market? The incentive to work can go down
avatar
B
siddharthfrancis
Manager
Manager
Joined: 19 Sep 2016
Posts: 59
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [0]
Given Kudos: 292
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   08 Nov 2018, 07:37
Can anyone provide a better explanation for C ??
avatar
B
PayalGmat2018
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Aug 2018
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [1]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   25 Feb 2019, 21:21
1
Kudos
bpdulog and siddharthfrancis
Although I picked D as well but after reading the explanations here I think what makes C a logical choice is the relation between " Unemployed people " and " people who have no other income ". They aren't the same. People with no other source of income can be physically disabled or special need people or can be any other set of people. Hence this choice is not specifically talking about the Unemployed people (which is the set we are concerned with).
I hope I am correct. Let me know if this makes sense.
avatar
B
PayalGmat2018
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Aug 2018
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [0]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   25 Feb 2019, 21:23
bpdulog and siddharthfrancis
Although I picked D as well but after reading the explanations here I think what makes C a logical choice is the relation between " Unemployed people " and " people who have no other income ". They aren't the same. People with no other source of income can be physically disabled or special need people or can be any other set of people. Hence this choice is not specifically talking about the Unemployed people (which is the set we are concerned with).
I hope I am correct. Let me know if this makes sense.
User avatar
P
sony1000
Manager
Manager
Joined: 31 May 2015
Posts: 215
Own Kudos [?]: 180 [0]
Given Kudos: 218
Location: Fiji
Schools: IE
GPA: 1
Send PM
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   26 Feb 2019, 03:26
Can someone shed light on why A is dismissed..I feel that if government does not collect taxes on part of worker's income it would be an incentive to become employed. Why is my compass pointing in the wrong direction.
avatar
B
EAvinoo
Intern
Intern
Joined: 21 Nov 2018
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 5 [1]
Given Kudos: 9
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   26 Feb 2019, 07:50
1
Kudos
Hi Sony,

Happy to respond! Though I am not an expert I will share my reasoning. “A” mentions that if an unemployed receives government assistance then only there will be no taxes. If they are employed then they may be required to pay taxes which in some way strengthens the argument. Hope this clarifies! Thank you!

Posted from my mobile device
avatar
B
PayalGmat2018
Intern
Intern
Joined: 23 Aug 2018
Posts: 5
Own Kudos [?]: 3 [1]
Given Kudos: 4
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   26 Feb 2019, 09:34
1
Kudos
sony1000

Hey Sony,

As per the option it says government do not collect taxes on the assistance provided to unemployed which in turns strengthen the argument's conclusion that now unemployed people will have incentive to not take the jobs. So this is opposite answer trap.
Hope it helps to clarify your doubt.
User avatar
D
sayan640
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Posts: 485
Own Kudos [?]: 264 [0]
Given Kudos: 307
Send PM
Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   09 May 2019, 05:17
bpdulog wrote:
fmik7894 wrote:
GMATNinja

Please review my reasoning for eliminating option D:

Let's assign numbers to the scenario mentioned in the argument:

1. Current income of unemployed adults: $0
2. Government assistance provided to unemployed adults: $100
3. Salary of Jobs below the government supplement: $60
5. New Government assistance: $40

Option D : The financial assistance that the government provides ($40) to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage ($60).

SO WHAT ? The sum total of what the unemployed people get under the new scheme is still $100. It strengthens the conclusion of the argument that THERE IS NO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE STILL GET $100 in total

Hence, we can eliminate option D


I am still not entirely sold on C (I picked D). Your example assumes that the recipient receives 2 types of assistance, $100 and $40. I'm not sure where this came from since the passage states that unemployed receive government assistance. So if government assistance is $100, and starting wages are $60, then the government will pay $40 to those who are employed to make it even. However, if the starting wage is $120, which is higher than the $100 of government assistance, then isn't there financial incentive to work?

With C, the advantage is clearly to those who already have a job. What if there is a tight job market? The incentive to work can go down


Although I picked C , I am not able to refute bpdulog's logic. Can you please help ? VeritasKarishma GMATNinja chetan2u generis
avatar
S
Ritwick91
Intern
Intern
Joined: 24 Jul 2018
Posts: 41
Own Kudos [?]: 37 [0]
Given Kudos: 21
Location: India
Schools: IMD '21
GPA: 4
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   09 May 2019, 21:57
Hi Experts,

Please help to explain why option C is correct here.

Thanks
avatar
B
DonVito
Intern
Intern
Joined: 04 Jul 2019
Posts: 26
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [0]
Given Kudos: 128
Location: India
Schools: Molson '22 (A) HEC Montreal '21 (A) Alberta "22 (A)
GMAT 1: 680 Q49 V33
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   02 Nov 2019, 14:43
VeritasPrepHailey wrote:
AkshayKS21 wrote:
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

(A) The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.

(B) Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.

(C) At any given time, people who are currently employed have the best chance of being offered a job that will give them an income significantly greater than government assistance would give them.

(D) The financial assistance that the government provides to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage.

(E) People sometimes choose a job for reasons that have nothing to do with the financial benefits it offers.

Same passage with different stem question: LINK

Show Spoiler
I faced this question in GMATPrep Exam 3, but the answer choices were quite different from what stated here.
Attached is image for reference.
Needless to say, I got it wrong :P

Attachment:
LedlandUnemployed.jpg


Hi Ritwick91 (and sayan640 ) - Happy to chime in here!

In this argument, we draw the conclusion that "unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement" basically because according to the argument - the incentive would be a wash - as it would make up for any amount below unemployment - but nothing beyond that point. So, individuals wouldn't be financially incentivized to take on jobs that would (after the supplement) pay the same amount as unemployment.

Answer choice (C) gives us a reason the incentive may be helpful despite this - as it would allow individuals to take on lower-paying jobs in hopes of advancing to higher paying jobs, without risking taking on a job that pays below the unemployment level. So, despite not bringing the individuals to a higher pay level than unemployment - it puts them in a position to obtain a higher paying job without the disadvantage of a lower-than-unemployment job in the meantime. This provides a financial incentive to said individuals.

Answer choice (D) on the other hand, doesn't matter to us, since it is irrelevant to those who would earn above the unemployment assistance level, and for those who earn below that level - it is a wash (as mentioned above). So, it doesn't weaken the conclusion that "unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement" - since to do so, we need a reason unemployed people might have some financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement. (C) gives this to us, while (D) does not.

I hope this helps!


Wow! Thank you, probably the best and only explanation that makes sense to me. You decoded option C very well, if one understands what C actually says, one can mark it as the answer. Gratitude.
User avatar
L
BrentGMATPrepNow
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 12 Sep 2015
Posts: 6818
Own Kudos [?]: 29940 [4]
Given Kudos: 799
Location: Canada
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   28 Apr 2020, 11:47
1
Kudos
3
Bookmarks
Expert Reply
Top Contributor
AkshayKS21 wrote:
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

(A) The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.

(B) Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.

(C) At any given time, people who are currently employed have the best chance of being offered a job that will give them an income significantly greater than government assistance would give them.

(D) The financial assistance that the government provides to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage.

(E) People sometimes choose a job for reasons that have nothing to do with the financial benefits it offers.


Argument summary:
Premise: Unemployed adults receive X dollars from the government
Premise: If you get a low-paying job, the government tops up your pay to X dollars
Conclusion: Since people get paid X dollars in both scenarios, unemployed people have no incentive to accept low-paying jobs.
Our goal is to weaken this conclusion.

(A) The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.
This actually strengthens the conclusion.
Unemployed people who receive X dollars from the government pay zero taxes
People in low-paying jobs still receive a total of X dollars, BUT they may have to pay taxes on their income
Given this situation, people pay fewer taxes if they're unemployed.
ELIMINATE A

(B) Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.
What occurs in neighboring countries has no bearing on what occurs in Ledland
ELIMINATE B

(C) At any given time, people who are currently employed have the best chance of being offered a job that will give them an income significantly greater than government assistance would give them.
Aha!
So, having a job (albeit low-paying) increases your chances of securing a high-paying job.
So, unemployed people have an incentive to accept low-paying jobs
KEEP C

(D) The financial assistance that the government provides to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage.
Irrelevant. All that matters here is that people receive a total of X dollars can both situations.
ELIMINATE D

(E) People sometimes choose a job for reasons that have nothing to do with the financial benefits it offers.
There's no mention here about choosing jobs that are low-paying (the main point in the entire argument)
ELIMINATE E

Answer: C

Cheers,
Brent
avatar
P
monk123
Manager
Manager
Joined: 15 Jun 2015
Posts: 201
Own Kudos [?]: 185 [0]
Given Kudos: 140
Location: India
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   29 Apr 2020, 02:14
Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?

(A) The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families. - OUT OF SCOPE (there was no mention of taxes)

(B) Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has. - OUT OF SCOPE (no comparison with neighboring states is done)

(C) At any given time, people who are currently employed have the best chance of being offered a job that will give them an income significantly greater than government assistance would give them. - CORRECT

(D) The financial assistance that the government provides to people who have no other income is less than the average starting wage. - STRENGTHEN ( this is indeed strengthening the conclusion)

(E) People sometimes choose a job for reasons that have nothing to do with the financial benefits it offers. - OUT OS SCOPE (there was no mention of people choosing a job )
User avatar
G
zoezhuyan
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 440
Own Kudos [?]: 84 [0]
Given Kudos: 147
Send PM
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink] New post   24 Jan 2021, 02:00
any experts can help me understand the sentence and the role in the argument?

the supplement will not raise any worker's income above what government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed.

when I encountered this question, I was struggling with this sentences there are double negative and I have no idea what's the role of the sentence

thanks in advance
GMAT Club Bot
gmatclubot
Re: Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government (2) [#permalink]
24 Jan 2021, 02:00
 1   2   
Moderators:
GMATNinja
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6921 posts
GMATNinjaTwo
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
mysterymanrog
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne
Main navigation
GMAT Resources
Partners
MBA Resources
www.gmac.com|www.mba.com | | GMAT Club Rules | Terms and Conditions