Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont s critics complain : GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR)
Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 Feb 2017, 16:11

### 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

Director
Status: Finally Done. Admitted in Kellogg for 2015 intake
Joined: 25 Jun 2011
Posts: 536
Location: United Kingdom
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V45
GPA: 2.9
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)
Followers: 75

Kudos [?]: 3065 [1] , given: 217

### Show Tags

10 Nov 2011, 14:35
1
KUDOS
7
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00

Difficulty:

35% (medium)

Question Stats:

70% (02:42) correct 30% (01:59) wrong based on 745 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

Practice Question
Question No.: 81
Page: 150
Difficulty:

Political Advertisement: 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.
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Best Regards,
E.

MGMAT 1 --> 530
MGMAT 2--> 640
MGMAT 3 ---> 610
GMAT ==> 730

If you have any questions
New!
Intern
Joined: 28 Jun 2011
Posts: 18
Followers: 0

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

### Show Tags

11 Nov 2011, 01:43
IMO c
what OA?
Manager
Status: Essaying
Joined: 27 May 2010
Posts: 153
Location: Ghana
Concentration: Finance, Finance
Schools: Cambridge
GMAT 1: 690 Q47 V37
GPA: 3.9
WE: Accounting (Education)
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 8

### Show Tags

11 Nov 2011, 03:25
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
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: 89
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 15

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2011, 02:30
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.
Manager
Status: SC SC SC SC SC.... Concentrating on SC alone.
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 240
Location: India
Concentration: General Management
GMAT Date: 12-30-2011
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 60 [0], given: 47

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2011, 02:46
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: 89
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 31 [0], given: 15

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2011, 03:56
^ 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: 240
Location: India
Concentration: General Management
GMAT Date: 12-30-2011
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 60 [4] , given: 47

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2011, 04:29
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: 16 Aug 2011
Posts: 911
Location: Viet Nam
GMAT Date: 06-06-2014
GPA: 3.07
Followers: 74

Kudos [?]: 622 [0], given: 44

### Show Tags

12 Nov 2011, 23:42
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: 79
Schools: NUS
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 32

### Show Tags

26 Nov 2011, 20:29
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
.
Senior Manager
Status: D-Day is on February 10th. and I am not stressed
Affiliations: American Management association, American Association of financial accountants
Joined: 12 Apr 2011
Posts: 270
Location: Kuwait
Schools: Columbia university
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 280 [0], given: 52

### Show Tags

27 Nov 2011, 11:25
i go with B! whats the OA?
_________________

Sky is the limit

Manager
Joined: 05 Mar 2011
Posts: 152
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 53 [0], given: 3

### Show Tags

29 Nov 2011, 21:15
c
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10628
Followers: 941

Kudos [?]: 207 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

07 Aug 2014, 17:31
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.
Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Posts: 168
Location: United States
GPA: 3.97
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 28 [1] , given: 72

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2014, 07:18
1
KUDOS
enigma123 wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

Practice Question
Question No.: 81
Page: 150
Difficulty:

Political Advertisement: 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.

I am not quite convinced with the reasoning given by folks in this discussion -

Firstly, The argument itself states that "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. " Thus from the argument we clearly know that 1. more jobs were getting created then were eliminated. 2. Plus, we also know that for the jobs created the average pay was higher than the city average at that time. And option C states the same thing for eliminated jobs. But, there is no correlation between : if the average pay of jobs created was more than average pay for jobs eliminated. Both of them were higher than the city average. But if the avg pay of jobs created was higher than jobs eliminated then Mayor did a good job.

and option C states - "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."

Is the reasoning behind C - "The jobs that were eliminated already had average pay higher than city average. Than, what did the mayor do? however, again we dont know if average pay for jobs created was greater than average pay for jobs eliminated or vice versa.

Am I missing something? Can someone explain, please.
_________________

KUDOS!!!, I need them too

Intern
Joined: 18 Dec 2013
Posts: 40
GPA: 2.84
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 24 [3] , given: 98

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2014, 18:35
3
KUDOS
sa2222 wrote:
enigma123 wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

Practice Question
Question No.: 81
Page: 150
Difficulty:

Political Advertisement: 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.

I am not quite convinced with the reasoning given by folks in this discussion -

Firstly, The argument itself states that "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. " Thus from the argument we clearly know that 1. more jobs were getting created then were eliminated. 2. Plus, we also know that for the jobs created the average pay was higher than the city average at that time. And option C states the same thing for eliminated jobs. But, there is no correlation between : if the average pay of jobs created was more than average pay for jobs eliminated. Both of them were higher than the city average. But if the avg pay of jobs created was higher than jobs eliminated then Mayor did a good job.

and option C states - "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."

Is the reasoning behind C - "The jobs that were eliminated already had average pay higher than city average. Than, what did the mayor do? however, again we dont know if average pay for jobs created was greater than average pay for jobs eliminated or vice versa.

Am I missing something? Can someone explain, please.

Hi SA222,

Before we get into the explanation, note that the last statement of the argument is not a fact but rather an "reasonable conclusion" based on other facts in the argument, however, there is one scenario where this reasonable conclusion --> ("So it stands to reason that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.") is not true.

Regarding your first point, you absolutely nailed it; The Argument itself states that,"1. more jobs were getting created then were eliminated. 2. Plus, we also know that for the jobs created the average pay was higher than the city average at that time. nd option C states the same thing for eliminated jobs. But, there is no correlation between:.....good job. ".

I underlined this part of your post since there lies the key to the correct answer choice and you do point it out in your statement, "Is the reasoning behind C - "The jobs that were eliminated already... again we dont know if average pay for jobs created was greater than average pay for jobs eliminated or vice versa."

This is exactly the point of the option C, the avg pay of job lost could be less or MORE than the avg pay of new jobs created! As you mentioned you cannot say for certain from the argument whether its more or less. So, lets analyze ... if the avg pay of lost job is less than the avg pay of jobs this year than we can agree that surely the avg pay of the city increased and that this increase took place under the mayors leadership

BUT

if the avg pay of lost jobs was higher then the avg pay of jobs this year then its not necessary that the avg pay check in the city got bigger or steadily got bigger.

Example: Lets assume there were 9 people in the city and the avg salary was $9K. Now, lets say 2 people lost there jobs and each of them was earning$16K, therefore a sum of $32K, therefore the new avg of the city would be$7K --->( 9p *$9K = 81K -(2p *16K) =$49K divide by 7 ppl working = $7K) Now according to the argument more jobs were created than eliminated, therefore, lets say there were 3 jobs created for the 2 jobs lost. Now, the argument also states that the new jobs created are higher than the cities avg, therefore, let the 3 new jobs earn a salary of$9.1K, then , if we calculate the new avg paycheck of the city it would be 7p* $7K =$49K + (2p *$9.1K) =$49K + $18.2K =$57.2K , therefore new avg = $5.72K (Divide the sum by 10 people) and since$5.72K avg is lower than \$9K avg before, it cannot be reasonably said that the avg paycheck of the city has been steadily getting bigger even after the new jobs created are paid higher than the city avg and are more in number than the jobs eliminated.

And since it cannot be reasonably said, therefore it also WEAKENS the advertisements argument

In order to determine if the avg paycheck in the city increased, we need to know the avg or the salary of all the people that lost their jobs or a condition that specifies that all those people who lost jobs, had, salaries less than the avg salary of the city.

I hope this explanation helps...

Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Posts: 168
Location: United States
GPA: 3.97
Followers: 5

Kudos [?]: 28 [0], given: 72

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2014, 07:39
Thanks DMMK, for the great explanation. Thanks for taking the time to read my points and explaining them one by one. CR is tricky!!

So if a certain information is missing in the point is put forward by the argument. We can challenge that point, by presenting another fact, which could question - the fact presented in the argument.

Is the reasong for rejecting A - is that it states about the present unemployment rate, but we dont know if Mayor is still in office now?
_________________

KUDOS!!!, I need them too

Intern
Joined: 18 Dec 2013
Posts: 40
GPA: 2.84
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 24 [0], given: 98

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2014, 08:31
sa2222 wrote:
Thanks DMMK, for the great explanation. Thanks for taking the time to read my points and explaining them one by one. CR is tricky!!

So if a certain information is missing in the point is put forward by the argument. We can challenge that point, by presenting another fact, which could question - the fact presented in the argument.

Is the reasong for rejecting A - is that it states about the present unemployment rate, but we dont know if Mayor is still in office now?

I am glad that I could help!

The reason why A is rejected is because A talks about Unemployment rate; which doesn't really affect the "reasonable conclusion" of the advertisement, since, the conclusion of the advertisement is that,"....throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger."

Explanation:
If you had to calculate the avg paycheck of the city, would you take into account the people who have no jobs? No, you wouldn't and because of this, your avg paycheck wouldn't not be affected by option A - even if the avg unemployment increased!

May be the unemployment increased because a huge batch of university students graduated.. but the main point being; unemployed folks are not part of the set that you need to take into consideration when calculating the avg paycheck, since they don't get a paycheck in the first place.

Therefore, A, does not do anything to weaken the argument of the advertisement.

Take away's:The good thing is that, You were on the right path to solve this problem, therefore, I personally feel that you probably just need more practice and problem like these would be a breeze... besides, CR is all about practice in my opinion.

Happy Studying!
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10628
Followers: 941

Kudos [?]: 207 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

23 Jul 2016, 09:59
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.
Manager
Joined: 18 Jun 2016
Posts: 106
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 14 [1] , given: 76

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2016, 07:41
1
KUDOS
enigma123 wrote:
Official Guide for GMAT Verbal Review, 2nd Edition

Practice Question
Question No.: 81
Page: 150
Difficulty:

Political Advertisement: 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.

A -> Conclusion is about rise in avg pay check => out of scope
b -> strnegthens conclusion
c-> if avg paycheck of lost jobs was higher, then avg paycheck of city cannot be raising ==> seems good
d -> out of scope
e -> out of scope

_________________

If my post was helpful, feel free to give kudos!

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
3 Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont s critics complain 18 14 May 2008, 10:40
Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont s critics complain 14 26 Jan 2008, 08:37
8 Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont s critics complain 10 15 Oct 2007, 11:44
Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont s critics complain 0 15 Jun 2007, 13:14
Display posts from previous: Sort by