GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 21 Aug 2018, 05:25

### 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

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.

Author Message
VP
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
Posts: 1004

### Show Tags

02 Nov 2008, 13:04
Nihit wrote:
Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont’s leadership. Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than were eliminated, but the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office. So there can be no question that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument in the advertisement?

A. The average pay for jobs created in the city during the past three years was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmont’s tenure.
B. Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
C. Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
D. The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.
E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.

I feel A strengthens the argument by showing that the average pay for the jobs has been increasing ...
_________________

"You have to find it. No one else can find it for you." - Bjorn Borg

Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 105

### Show Tags

02 Nov 2008, 15:46
3
2
This is a well designed question. It combines arithmetic (and the basic formula for an average) with subtle gaps in the argument's reasoning. Real managers in real businesses often make the kinds of mistakes that are built into the argument, so this is not just an academic exercise.

I think the most important thing to notice is that the conclusion is about average pay for ALL the jobs in the city, while the evidence tells us only about the number of jobs CREATED and LOST, and about the average pay for the jobs CREATED. It tells us nothing about the jobs which simply stayed there, which are probably the majority of jobs. It also doesn't tell us anything about the average pay for the jobs which were LOST.

So there are major holes in the argument's arithmetic. The average pay for the jobs created was greater than the average pay for ALL jobs, but this increase in total pay, whatever it is, was offset to an unknown degree by the total pay for the jobs LOST. If the average pay for the lost jobs was higher than the average pay for the new jobs (which is entirely possible, given the evidence), then the NET change in total pay divided by the NET change in jobs would be less than the previous average pay for all jobs. That would make average pay for all jobs go down, not up.

Another hole is that the evidence does not prevent the average pay for jobs that are NOT created or lost from going down over time. Even if the average pay for lost jobs was NOT higher than the average pay for new jobs, a decline in the average pay for the "stable" jobs could more than offset that change.

So to strengthen the argument, we need to plug one of these holes. Choice D is correct because it plugs the first hole: If the average pay for the lost jobs was equal to the average pay for all jobs, then it can't be higher than the average pay for the new jobs -- because the evidence tells us that the new jobs paid better (on average) than all jobs.

Note that (as often happens with strengthening questions) the correct answer doesn't prove the argument, but just IMproves it. In this case, D plugs one of the gaps. But because it still leaves us not knowing whether average pay for "stable" jobs remained the same, it does not prove the conclusion.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 89

### Show Tags

02 Nov 2008, 23:40
This is a rotten old average number fallacy and answer is (D)
_________________

Kick GMAT ass

Senior Manager
Joined: 05 Jun 2008
Posts: 289

### Show Tags

Updated on: 20 May 2017, 00:36
2
Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont’s leadership. Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than were eliminated, but each year since Delmont took office the average pay for the new jobs created has been higher than that year’s average pay for jobs citywide. So it stands to reason that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument in the advertisement?

A. The unemployment rate in the city is higher today than it was when Mayor Delmont took office.
B. The average pay for jobs in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
C. Each year during Mayor Delmont’s tenure, the average pay for jobs that were eliminated has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide.
D. Most of the jobs eliminated during Mayor Delmont’s tenure were in declining industries.
E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently lower than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.

Originally posted by vivektripathi on 14 Dec 2008, 05:04.
Last edited by hazelnut on 20 May 2017, 00:36, edited 2 times in total.
Intern
Joined: 11 Dec 2008
Posts: 22

### Show Tags

14 Dec 2008, 06:49
vivektripathi wrote:
Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under
Delmont’s leadership. Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than were
eliminated, but each year since Delmont took office the average pay for the new jobs
created has been higher than that year’s average pay for jobs citywide. So it stands to
reason that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument in the
A. The unemployment rate in the city is higher today than it was when Mayor
Delmont took office.
B. The average pay for jobs in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont
took office.
C. Each year during Mayor Delmont’s tenure, the average pay for jobs that were
eliminated has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide.
D. Most of the jobs eliminated during Mayor Delmont’s tenure were in declining
industries.
E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently lower than it is for jobs in the
suburbs surrounding the city.

Answer would be C. Conclusition of the argument is that the average pay is getting bigger because of the higher paying new jobs created during Mayor's leadership. And we are asked to find the one that weakens this argument and conclusion.
IF C is true, then the conclusion can't stand.
Senior Manager
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 383

### Show Tags

18 Dec 2008, 03:26
netcaesar wrote:

B strengthen the argument....IF the wages was at 10 years low while the mayor office took the responsibility then it's written in the last linne of the argument that the average pay is steadily increasing.......
Manager
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 228
Location: nj

### Show Tags

05 May 2009, 15:12
2
23
Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont’s leadership. Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than were eliminated, but the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office. So there can be no question that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument in the advertisement?

(A) The average pay for jobs created in the city during the past three years was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmont’s tenure.

(B) Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.

(C) Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.

(D) The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.

(E) The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.
Manager
Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Posts: 232

### Show Tags

Updated on: 05 May 2009, 21:38
11
1
Yeah IMO D

Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont’s leadership. Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than were eliminated, but the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office. So there can be no question that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument in the advertisement?

A. The average pay for jobs created in the city during the past three years was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmont’s tenure --> three years is an indefinite time period and this just mentions about average pay for jobs created, not average pay for all jobs, so eliminate
B. Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office -->no influence
C. Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again --> the same like B, too far to have an influence to the argument
D. The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide --> the best. Imagine, A is average pay for job created, B is for job eliminated, C for job citywide. At the beginning of the year, the average pay for all jobs in the city are B + C; at the end of the year, because a number of jobs are eliminated (their average pay are B) and a number of job are created (their average are A), the average pay for all jobs in the city are A +C. Therefore, because A>C and B=C, (A+C) - (B+C) > 0 --> at the end end of the year, the average paycheck of all jobs in the city is bigger than it was at the beginning of the year. And this fact continues year after year (in the Delmont's tenure) because every jobs created in any year will have their average pays higher than that of jobs created in the year before but eliminated in that year.
E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city -->suburb is irrelevant

Originally posted by Minheequang on 05 May 2009, 19:17.
Last edited by Minheequang on 05 May 2009, 21:38, edited 1 time in total.
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 739

### Show Tags

05 May 2009, 23:16
typhoidX wrote:
I'm fairly confident on this one, but is there an OA nevertheless?

yeah..you are right OA is D

Manager
Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 230

### Show Tags

13 Jun 2009, 23:30
D for me.....Thats how the average pay would have been greater than the neighbouring states...
_________________

Choose Life

Manager
Joined: 04 Jan 2011
Posts: 69

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2011, 09:30
2
Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont’s leadership. Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than were eliminated, but the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office. So there can be no question that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument in the advertisement?
A. The average pay for jobs created in the city during the past three years was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmont’s tenure.
B. Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
C. Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
D. The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.
E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.

Edit: I corrected the OA of this problem. Mike McGarry
Manager
Joined: 07 Jan 2010
Posts: 129
Location: So. CA
WE 1: 2 IT
WE 2: 4 Software Analyst

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2011, 13:37
wow i'm confused, how does (C) strengthen the argument?

argument: since Delmont’s tenure, people are getting paid better and more jobs are getting created?
Manager
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 168

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2011, 16:20
Absolutely no idea why the OA is C. Can somebody pls explain
Director
Status: Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. It's a dare. Impossible is nothing.
Affiliations: University of Chicago Booth School of Business
Joined: 03 Feb 2011
Posts: 787

### Show Tags

09 Apr 2011, 16:42
I am so convinced the answer is D and here is the reasoning -

Lets say the average pay of jobs per year citywide = 60k
Lets say the average pay of jobs eliminated per year = 62k
And lets say the average pay of new jobs created in the city per year is 70k

This means the positive difference 70k - 62k is growing year after year. Hence D is supporting the conclusion - "the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger."

Another vital assumption is the population group - employed and unemployed is NOT varying much. But since my job is not to weaken the argument, I won't attack this assumption. D is alright.
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1345

### Show Tags

11 Apr 2011, 14:03
The answer here is most definitely not C; it's D.

The argument in the passage isn't airtight. Sure, we know that each year jobs are added with 'above average' salaries. But if the overall average salary has been trending downward (either because high-paying jobs were eliminated, or because wages were being cut at existing jobs) the newly added jobs might not be enough to ensure that 'the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.' D at least addresses one of those concerns: the jobs that have been eliminated were not especially highly paid.

C is completely irrelevant; it's definitely not the right answer.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Intern
Joined: 01 Apr 2011
Posts: 10

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2011, 17:10
How Come a is wrong? If the unemployment is bigger than it obviously can't be true! But how can they state something that is obviously written otherwise in the text?

Posted from GMAT ToolKit
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Posts: 66

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2011, 18:57
2
patrickwestoo wrote:
How Come a is wrong? If the unemployment is bigger than it obviously can't be true! But how can they state something that is obviously written otherwise in the text?

Posted from GMAT ToolKit

Even if A is assumed to be right, it does not affect the paycheck. Paycheck is only influenced by those who are employed.. therefore, we are looking for scenarios which would increase or decrease the average salary. Option A will have no bearing on the average salary. If the question had asked for employment rate, then A would have mattered.

OptimusPrimea1 wrote:

The conclusion says "throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been
To weaken this, we need to show that the net pay for all those who employed has come down. As per C, the average pay for the new jobs created is lesser than the average pay for the jobs that were eliminated; this fits our bill!
Manager
Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Posts: 231
Location: United States
Concentration: Strategy, Marketing
GMAT 1: 720 Q51 V36

### Show Tags

17 Oct 2011, 21:28
On the first scan of the options, I couldn't find any that fit the answer. Then I went back to the question and found that it looked for something that would weaken the conclusion and the conclusion is not about employment statistics, but average paycheck. Bingo!

Quote:
The conclusion says "throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been
To weaken this, we need to show that the net pay for all those who employed has come down. As per C, the average pay for the new jobs created is lesser than the average pay for the jobs that were eliminated; this fits our bill!

_________________
Manager
Status: Essaying
Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 124
Location: Ghana
Concentration: Finance, Finance
Schools: Cambridge
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GPA: 3.9
WE: Accounting (Education)

### Show Tags

11 Nov 2011, 04:25
1
C.
WIth the reasoning in C, higher paying jobs are lost and lower paying jobs are created.
In the end, the average pay will fall
Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Posts: 66

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2011, 03:30
I side with C as well. But C does not address the number of high paying jobs that were actually eliminated as against the number of new jobs that have been added. Therefore, although C seems to be the best available, it does not seem complete.

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5    Next  [ 83 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Moderators: GMATNinja, GMATNinjaTwo

# Events & Promotions

 Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.