It is currently 22 Mar 2018, 20:35

### 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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Manager
Status: SC SC SC SC SC.... Concentrating on SC alone.
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 206
Location: India
Concentration: General Management
GMAT Date: 12-30-2011
Re: Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2011, 03:46
DexDee wrote:
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.

The average incliudes number as well.

Straight C.
_________________

D- Day December 30 2011. Hoping for the happiest new year celebrations !

Aiming for 700+

Kudo me if the post is worth it

Manager
Joined: 28 Sep 2011
Posts: 75
Re: Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2011, 04:56
^ We are talking about the overall average here. The averages described in the answer choices are individual averages of jobs lost and jobs gained. This is not the same as the net average?
Manager
Status: SC SC SC SC SC.... Concentrating on SC alone.
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 206
Location: India
Concentration: General Management
GMAT Date: 12-30-2011
Re: Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2011, 05:29
4
KUDOS
The issue around here is the average paycheck. The argument says that the average pay has been increasing since the mayor took charge.

The option C states that the overall average pay has been brought down by eliminating workers with high average pay. So, the overall average is being reduced. The new workers' average pay is less than the pay of the average pay of the eliminated jobs. So this clearly weakens the argument by saying that the average paychecks has actually decreased overall and only the average pay of the new employees whose salary is lesser than the average salary of the eliminated fellows is growing since the mayor took charge.

Hope it clarifies
_________________

D- Day December 30 2011. Hoping for the happiest new year celebrations !

Aiming for 700+

Kudo me if the post is worth it

BSchool Forum Moderator
Status: Flying over the cloud!
Joined: 17 Aug 2011
Posts: 831
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Re: Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

13 Nov 2011, 00:42
A. The unemployment rate in the city is higher today than it was 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.

I confused between A and C. I will choose C. However, anyone can tell me why A wrong?
_________________

Rules for posting in verbal gmat forum, read it before posting anything in verbal forum
Giving me + 1 kudos if my post is valuable with you

The more you like my post, the more you share to other's need

CR: Focus of the Week: Must be True Question

Manager
Joined: 08 Jun 2011
Posts: 57
Schools: NUS
Re: Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2011, 21:29
tuanquang269 wrote:
A. The unemployment rate in the city is higher today than it was 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.

I confused between A and C. I will choose C. However, anyone can tell me why A wrong?

The conclusion is that in "Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger"
option A states that The Unemployment rate has increased but the overall average pay may increase or decrease
So C shud be the answer
.
Manager
Joined: 21 Feb 2012
Posts: 115
Location: India
Concentration: Finance, General Management
GMAT 1: 600 Q49 V23
GPA: 3.8
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Re: Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

11 May 2012, 10:51
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.

What Critics say jobs were lost under Delmont’s leadership.
FactNot only more jobs were created, but the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office.
Conclusion based on the fact provided, the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger. Mayor was the reason behind that increase.
Now we have to strengthen this argument.Let’s have a look at the options :

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.--->This argument states that the average pay check for jobs created in the city during the past 3 years was higher than the avg paychek for jobs created in the city in Mayor’s tenure. This statement only provides an evidence that 3 years before Mayor Delmont was in office, and since then the average pay for jobs created in the city was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city.So Mayor must have took some steps to create new jobs and an increase in the average pay for the new jobs. Thus this is the most logical statement that can help strengthen the above argument.
B. Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office. -->This statement weakens the conclusion.
C. Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again. -->weakens the conclusion.
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. --> Out of scope.
E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city. -->The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city. It is talking in present tense. But in argument there has been no mention whether the author is talking about present. Instead it is talking in past tense.

Thus A is the clear answer.

Give me kudos if u like my post.....
Intern
Joined: 31 Oct 2013
Posts: 1

### Show Tags

31 Oct 2013, 12:07
Analysis: new jobs are more than eliminated jobs; new jobs' paychecks are higher than avergae pay citywide. To strengthen the argument of paychecks getting steadily bigger: D. eliminated jobs' pay were only equal to average pay citywide
A is not accurate because of the "three year" contradicts the point of steadily.
B Weakens the argument
C have no points
E have no points
Manager
Joined: 14 Dec 2011
Posts: 219
GPA: 3.46
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Re: Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2014, 01:32
Please edit the OA for this question. IMO D is correct.
Senior Manager
Joined: 04 May 2013
Posts: 351
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Human Resources
Schools: XLRI GM"18
GPA: 4
WE: Human Resources (Human Resources)
Re: Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

15 Jan 2014, 08:06
IMO- " D"............
If the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office, the average paycheck will get steadily bigger.

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..... since the average pay for jobs eliminated is equal to the average of jobs city wide.... then the new jobs which have a higher average pay than the jobs citywide, will definitely increase the city average of pay packet.........NO DOUBT...... its a question of WEIGHTED AVERAGE......
Manager
Status: Student
Joined: 26 Aug 2013
Posts: 247
Location: France
Concentration: Finance, General Management
Schools: EMLYON FT'16
GMAT 1: 650 Q47 V32
GPA: 3.44
Re: Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

17 Jan 2014, 16:11
Hi,

Sure OA is D here!

C weaken the argument. D only strenghten .

Hope it helps
_________________

Think outside the box

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4678
Re: Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

06 Feb 2014, 13:32
3
KUDOS
Expert's post
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
fanatico 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.

idinuv wrote:
Dear Mike,
Request you to kindly provide input on the following CR question.

Dear idinuv,
I'm happy to respond.

First of all, from what I can tell, when fanatico posted this question, he posted the wrong answer as the OA. I found what I believe is the source online, and the source says OA = (D), which is eminently reasonable. For some reason, this question is all over the web with the wrong answer, and of course, that stirs up all sorts of discussion --- "how is it that (C) strengthens the argument?" Well, it doesn't, because (D) is the answer.

The advertisement tells us that, during Delmont's tenure, average pay in the city has been "getting steadily bigger." We want to strengthen that.
Here's my analysis of the answer choices:
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.
Well, hmmm. This is consistent with the argument certainly, but not necessarily a strengthener. Suppose the average pay of the new jobs over the past six years, consecutively, was: \$40K, \$35K, \$30K, \$70K, \$65K, \$60K. Then, the most recent three years definitely have a higher average than the first three years, but this pattern does not indicate "getting steadily bigger" each year. This statement could be a strengthener, but it doesn't have to be. This is not correct.

B. Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
Again, this would be consistent with the claim: the fact that we started so low does suggest there's nowhere to go but up. BUT, does it mean that average pay citywide steadily increased in each of Delmont's six years in office? Maybe, maybe not. This statement also could be a strengthener, but it doesn't have to be. This is not correct.

C. Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
If Delmont added some high paying jobs, and then eliminated those same high paying jobs, that would cause the average to go up, and then down. This would weaken the argument: in fact, it's a very cogent weakener. BUT, we are looking for a strengthener. This is incorrect.

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 jobs added were above this average, and so if the jobs eliminated were, roughly, equal to this average, then what is added is always higher than what is subtracted, and the average increases steadily. This is correct.

E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.
We don't care about the suburbs. That's irrelevant. This is incorrect.

That's why (D) has to be the answer, and it is the OA of the source.

Mike
_________________

Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test Prep

Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)

Current Student
Joined: 06 Sep 2013
Posts: 1947
Concentration: Finance

### Show Tags

01 Jun 2014, 15:50
Pqhai would you mind solving this question? Especially stuck between B and D

Thanks
Cheers
J
Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 267

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2014, 03:41
This question needs some clarity. Can the experts please clarify and confirm ?
Manager
Status: GMAT Instructor
Joined: 23 Jun 2013
Posts: 170
Location: India
GRE 1: 2280 Q790 V710
GPA: 3.3
WE: Editorial and Writing (Education)

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2014, 20:17
1
KUDOS
The argument says that more jobs were created than were eliminated. The argument later concludes that the average pay check in the city has gone up. For the conclusion to hold, the average pay for these new jobs must be greater than the average pay for the jobs that were eliminated -- all other things being equal.

The argument also says that the average pay for the new jobs is higher than the average pay for jobs citywide (Fact 2). Now we do not know whether the average pay for the eliminated jobs was higher than, less than, or equal to the average pay for jobs citywide. If we can somehow guarantee that the average pay for the eliminated jobs was less than or equal to the average pay for jobs citywide, then we can properly conclude that the average pay for the new jobs is higher than the average pay for the eliminated jobs -- thus strengthening the conclusion.

D guarantees this.

_________________

EnterMBA

Intern
Joined: 25 May 2014
Posts: 9
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V35
Re: Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

29 Aug 2015, 13:05
should be D.
if average of eliminated job is higher than average of city job then new job addition may bring down city average (even if it's higher than average of city). This case is eliminated by saying that average city job = eliminated job average. Now given that new job average is more than city average in the stem it's safe that average city job increased steadily.
Director
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 522
Concentration: Technology, Other

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2016, 05:07
1
KUDOS
Top Contributor
Mayor Delmontâ€™s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmontâ€™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.

Conc: So there can be no question that throughout Delmontâ€™s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

-------(Avg pay)----(job pay between highest and average pay job)------( highest pay)-----------
What if the removed jobs were the highly paid jobs than the ones that have been added. In that case, it's true that the newly added job pay more than average but city's average paycheck has has go down.

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 Delmontâ€™s tenure.
>> Ignore. There can be multiple possibilities and hence not sufficient to evaluate the claim. May be the Avg pay of job added last year was lower than the average pay of city etc.
(B) Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
>> similar to A. Ignore.

(C) Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmontâ€™s tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
>> Ignore.

(D) The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmontâ€™s tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.
>> In line with our reasoning.

(E) The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.
>> Comparison is between avg pay of added jobs to that of city's jobs. ignore.
_________________

--------------------------------------------------------
Regards

Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2016
Posts: 54
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
WE: Other (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2016, 02:50

Conclusion - Average paycheck in the city is getting higher (Meaning - Average pay, comprising of low, middle and high paying jobs, is increasing)

Premise - Avg. pay for newly created jobs is higher than avg. pay for jobs worldwide + (jobs created > jobs lost)

If jobs eliminated had avg payscales higher than previous (before mayor took office charge) avg payscales, it only means that higher paying jobs got eliminated. This will lead to a lower avg payscale at city level during mayor's tenure and so, there was no steady increase in avg paycheck (as per authors conclusion)
Manager
Joined: 01 Sep 2016
Posts: 114
Re: Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Dec 2016, 08:43
Thank you for this explanation.I fell for "A" :

Minheequang wrote:
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
Manager
Status: Final Call! Will Achieve Target ANyHow This Tym! :)
Joined: 05 Jan 2016
Posts: 89
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
GPA: 3.8

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2017, 03:19
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
mikemcgarry wrote:
fanatico 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.

idinuv wrote:
Dear Mike,
Request you to kindly provide input on the following CR question.

Dear idinuv,
I'm happy to respond.

First of all, from what I can tell, when fanatico posted this question, he posted the wrong answer as the OA. I found what I believe is the source online, and the source says OA = (D), which is eminently reasonable. For some reason, this question is all over the web with the wrong answer, and of course, that stirs up all sorts of discussion --- "how is it that (C) strengthens the argument?" Well, it doesn't, because (D) is the answer.

The advertisement tells us that, during Delmont's tenure, average pay in the city has been "getting steadily bigger." We want to strengthen that.
Here's my analysis of the answer choices:
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.
Well, hmmm. This is consistent with the argument certainly, but not necessarily a strengthener. Suppose the average pay of the new jobs over the past six years, consecutively, was: \$40K, \$35K, \$30K, \$70K, \$65K, \$60K. Then, the most recent three years definitely have a higher average than the first three years, but this pattern does not indicate "getting steadily bigger" each year. This statement could be a strengthener, but it doesn't have to be. This is not correct.

B. Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
Again, this would be consistent with the claim: the fact that we started so low does suggest there's nowhere to go but up. BUT, does it mean that average pay citywide steadily increased in each of Delmont's six years in office? Maybe, maybe not. This statement also could be a strengthener, but it doesn't have to be. This is not correct.

C. Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
If Delmont added some high paying jobs, and then eliminated those same high paying jobs, that would cause the average to go up, and then down. This would weaken the argument: in fact, it's a very cogent weakener. BUT, we are looking for a strengthener. This is incorrect.

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 jobs added were above this average, and so if the jobs eliminated were, roughly, equal to this average, then what is added is always higher than what is subtracted, and the average increases steadily. This is correct.

E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.
We don't care about the suburbs. That's irrelevant. This is incorrect.

That's why (D) has to be the answer, and it is the OA of the source.

Mike

Hi mikemcgarry,

The explanation above is wonderful and is extremely helpful for anyone. But I have one question related to option D that is continuously troubling me, so I thought to ask you instead.

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 jobs added were above this average, and so if the jobs eliminated were, roughly, equal to this average, then what is added is always higher than what is subtracted, and the average increases steadily. This is correct.

I agree with what you have said above. But I am still not clear how the increase is steady (STEADY - in a REGULAR AND EVEN MANNER.) in the above case??

Also, from the above argument, the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office.
and from the option 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.
Thus, as you said, the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure. But how come the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger. I am confused with the steadily bigger part? Can you please explain.
_________________

Regards,
Varun

Trying my best..... will succeed definitely! :)

The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long.
+1 Kudos if you find this post helpful. :)

Do Check OG 2017 SC Solutions - http://gmatwithcj.com/solutions-gmat-official-guide-2017-sentence-correction-questions/

Status: It's now or never
Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Posts: 283
Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q40 V39
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Consulting)

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2017, 11:08
C is the choice IMO - 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.
_________________

Class of 2019: Mannheim Business School
Class 0f 2020: HHL Leipzig

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

Display posts from previous: Sort by