It is currently 17 Jan 2018, 10:24

### 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

Senior Manager
Joined: 28 Apr 2014
Posts: 271

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 46

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2014, 02:41
This question needs some clarity. Can the experts please clarify and confirm ?

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 46

Manager
Status: GMAT Instructor
Joined: 23 Jun 2013
Posts: 178

Kudos [?]: 84 [1], given: 4

Location: India
GRE 1: 2280 Q790 V710
GPA: 3.3
WE: Editorial and Writing (Education)

### Show Tags

03 Jun 2014, 19:17
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

Kudos [?]: 84 [1], given: 4

Non-Human User
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10263

Kudos [?]: 287 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

09 Aug 2015, 17:35
Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Kudos [?]: 287 [0], given: 0

Intern
Joined: 25 May 2014
Posts: 9

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 2

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, 12:05
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.

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 2

Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 05 Nov 2012
Posts: 529

Kudos [?]: 701 [1], given: 606

Concentration: Technology, Other

### Show Tags

30 Jul 2016, 04:07
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

Kudos [?]: 701 [1], given: 606

Manager
Joined: 21 Jul 2016
Posts: 55

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 49

Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
WE: Other (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2016, 01:50

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)

Kudos [?]: 7 [0], given: 49

Manager
Joined: 01 Sep 2016
Posts: 118

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 93

Re: Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the [#permalink]

### Show Tags

31 Dec 2016, 07:43
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

Kudos [?]: 12 [0], given: 93

Manager
Status: Final Call! Will Achieve Target ANyHow This Tym! :)
Joined: 05 Jan 2016
Posts: 90

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 135

Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
GPA: 3.8

### Show Tags

13 Aug 2017, 02:19
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/

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 135

Status: It's now or never
Joined: 10 Feb 2017
Posts: 287

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 51

Location: India
GMAT 1: 650 Q40 V39
GPA: 3
WE: Consulting (Consulting)

### Show Tags

23 Aug 2017, 10:08
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

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 51

Manager
Joined: 27 Dec 2016
Posts: 122

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 799

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2017, 13:10
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!

Kudos [?]: 37 [0], given: 799

Intern
Joined: 07 Sep 2016
Posts: 3

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Sep 2017, 18:43
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

Kudos [?]: [0], given: 0

Target Test Prep Representative
Status: Founder & CEO
Affiliations: Target Test Prep
Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 2014

Kudos [?]: 1083 [0], given: 4

Location: United States (CA)

### Show Tags

15 Dec 2017, 10:44
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

Kudos [?]: 1083 [0], given: 4

Go to page   Previous    1   2   3   4   5   [ 92 posts ]

Display posts from previous: Sort by