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

 It is currently 21 Aug 2018, 10:50

### 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
Manager
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 202

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2017, 14:10
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 Mike,

The reason why there is so much confusion going around regarding option C is because this question is very similar to the one that's given in the Official Guide Verbal Review 2018 (Question Number 185 to be precise). The original question asks for a weakener instead of a strengthener and the OA for that question is C which is very similar to the official answer to this question. Hence, the confusion!
Intern
Joined: 07 Sep 2016
Posts: 3

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2017, 19:43
Do not confuse people
OA : D
If the jobs that were eliminated are below the avg pay then this would result in an overall increase in avg paycheck.
When we say it was not the case.
We strengthen - new jobs have increased the avg pay check

Posted from my mobile device
Target Test Prep Representative
Status: Founder & CEO
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 3186
Location: United States (CA)

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2017, 11:44
chunjuwu 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.

The argument concludes that since the average pay for new jobs was greater than the average pay for all jobs citywide, paychecks must have been getting bigger. This reasoning makes sense because the greater pay of the new jobs would pull up the average pay of all jobs.

One thing to notice about this argument is that it contains information that does not seem directly relevant to the conclusion. All we need in order to arrive at the conclusion is the information that the average pay of new jobs has been higher than the average pay of all jobs citywide, but the argument includes the information that some jobs have been eliminated. Perhaps this information will somehow figure into how the argument can be strengthened.

Let’s go to the answer choices and find out.

(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 choice could be tempting because it seems to provide information that indicates that paychecks are growing. However, this choice does not show that paychecks citywide are growing. It shows only that the pay for new jobs grew. The pay for new jobs could go up year after year, and yet other forces could simultaneously drive down the average pay in the city.

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

The fact that average pay was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office does not mean that it increased after he took office. It could have decreased further while he was in office.

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

The support for the conclusion that paychecks got bigger is that pay for new jobs is higher than average pay citywide, and thus the higher pay at new jobs drove up the average pay citywide. So, since the creation of new jobs is the cause of the increase in pay, the elimination of some of the new jobs clearly does not reinforce the conclusion that pay increased.

(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.

This choice strengthens the argument by addressing a possible issue.

The passage indicates that not only were jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure, but also some jobs were lost. The argument then concludes that since the new jobs pay more than the citywide average, the creation of the new jobs resulted in an increase in the citywide average.

There is an issue, however. What if the average pay for the jobs lost was greater than the average pay for the jobs gained? If the jobs lost paid more than the jobs gained, it could be that average pay in the city went down rather than up.

This choice addresses that issue by making clear that the average pay of the jobs lost was the same as the average pay citywide. So, the loss of those jobs did not negatively affect the average pay citywide.

By addressing that issue and eliminating the possibility that average pay citywide was negatively affected via the loss of some jobs, this choice strengthens the conclusion that average pay increased rather than decreased.

(E) The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.

The conclusion is not about whether pay in the city is higher than pay elsewhere. It is that pay in the city is higher than previously. Since this choice does not provide information that indicates that pay in the city increased, it does not strengthen the argument.

_________________

Scott Woodbury-Stewart
Founder and CEO

GMAT Quant Self-Study Course
500+ lessons 3000+ practice problems 800+ HD solutions

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   [ 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®.