aceacharya wrote:
amit2k9 wrote:
There is a reasoning gap for the statistics mentioned in the argument here.Hence a supporter answer choice is needed.
Between A and B.
A gives a defender answer choice warding off external effect. POE.
B Out of 100 people looking for work, 7 not working old
out of 100 people looking for work, 5 not working new
negating - more than 2% people have stopped looking for work.
out of 97 people looking for work, 5 not working possible for the new condition.
This crashes the conclusion that the schemes have brought down the unemployment index.
Hence B here.
Sorry for reopening this old argument. But whats wrong with E
B seems to indicate that less than 2% for example 19 out of a 1000 people have dropped out of the work force and therefor the % of employed has improved but the actual number of people employed might not have increased.
So for the politician to claim credit for this improvement the actual numbers employed should have increased. Wouldnt option E be the assumption that the politician would make to supplement his claim
Or is it that GMAT considers all politicians to be statistic manipulators
Hi aceacharya
I'm glad to help.
Before answer you questions, please make sure you understand the fact correctly:
Fact: The percentage of people who are looking for work but are unable to find it has dropped from 7% to 5% of the total number of people either working or looking for work.
==> The formula is:
The ratio = Number of people are unable to find job/ [Number of people working + Number of people are looking for job]
The decrease from 7% to 5% only makes sense if
The denominator [Number of people working + Number of people are looking for job]
increases or does not change.
If the denominator decreases as well, The percentage decrease does not make any point.
E) The politician’s business-friendly policies have had a direct affect on the ability of firms to hire more workers
The firms hire more people ==> Number of people get hired increase. But what happens if many people looking for job STOP finding job or many people who are working QUIT their job ==> The denominator will decrease. Clearly, the reduction to 5% does not make any sense ==> E cannot be the assumption.
B) Less than 2% of the population that were working or willing to work at the start of the politician’s term have stopped working or looking for work.B means
the denominator DOES NOT DECREASE too much to make the percentage reduction be nonsensical.
You say “the % of employed has improved but the actual number of people employed might not have increased”
is not correct. If the denominator decreases less than 2%, the number of people get hired
must increase.
I will borrow your example:
There are 1000 people (working + looking job).
Before: 7% are unable to find job ==> number of people employed = 1000 – 70 = 930
After: 5% are unable to find job + 1.5% (less than 2%) stop looking for job ==> number of people employed = 1000 – 50 – 15 = 935
Hence, B is correct.
Hope it helps.