Events & Promotions
|
|
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
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Apr 1612:00 PM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
You’re first to know: Save $200 on GMAT prep starting tomorrow, 4/13. Get 6 official practice tests and study with real questions. Be ready to save!
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
11 Jan 2021, 22:29
Kudos
Bookmarks
enigma123
More jobs were created than were eliminated.
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.
Conclusion: throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.
Say Delmont took office in 2018.
Jobs created in 2018 > Jobs lost in 2018
Avg pay for new jobs in 2018 > Avg pay for jobs in 2018
But does this mean that avg pay in 2018 was greater than avg pay in 2017? No. What if avg pay in 2017 was higher because a recession hit in 2018 or because the jobs lost in 2018 were the very high paying jobs etc? What if the same trend continued in 2019, 2020 etc. Every year the avg pay reduced because recession got worse or because the highest paying jobs kept getting lost. Then the conclusion will not hold.
A. The unemployment rate in the city is higher today than it was when Mayor Delmont took office.
Rate of unemployment depends on how many people are entering the work force every year too. We know total number of jobs has increased. If unemployment has also increased, it just means even more people are joining the work force. It tells us nothing about avg pay.
B. The average pay for jobs in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
It doesn't matter even if the avg pay check was lowest. As long as it is rising, we can conclude our conclusion.
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.
Correct. This means that the highest paying jobs were getting eliminated. In that case, overall avg pay will be getting lower every year, not higher. Then our conclusion would not hold true.
warrior1991
Note that the pay of new jobs is a part of avg pay that year. So avg pay in 2018 already includes the pay of new jobs added but does not include the pay of jobs eliminated.
Whatever may be the avg pay of new jobs added, it combines with continuing jobs and gives us the total avg pay. If the avg of eliminated jobs is higher than that, the avg pay will see an overall reduction.
D. Most of the jobs eliminated during Mayor Delmont’s tenure were in declining industries.
The industries from which jobs were lost are irrelevant.
E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently lower than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.
Comparison of city with suburbs is irrelevant.
Answer (C)
aarkay87
Joined: 14 May 2020
Last visit: 29 Jan 2022
Posts: 119
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 180
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, General Management
Schools: IIMA PGPX'23
GMAT 1: 640 Q49 V27
GPA: 4
WE:Engineering (Manufacturing)
19 Apr 2021, 04:37
Kudos
Bookmarks
Hi experts,
I am still not clear about option C.
Option C will only weaken the argument when the average pay for the jobs that were eliminated would be higher than the average pay for the new jobs, only then we can say that overall average pay will go down.
Otherwise, if the average pay for the jobs that were eliminated is less than the average pay for the new jobs then the overall average will go up.
I am still not clear about option C.
Option C will only weaken the argument when the average pay for the jobs that were eliminated would be higher than the average pay for the new jobs, only then we can say that overall average pay will go down.
Otherwise, if the average pay for the jobs that were eliminated is less than the average pay for the new jobs then the overall average will go up.
19 Apr 2021, 06:49
Kudos
Bookmarks
aarkay87
aarkay87, I'm no expert but see if this helps
The question here is "which of the following most seriously weakens". C is much better than the rest. We could go into weighted average and what not, but the main this is option C weakens the argument for now. Of course, that doesn't mean that C will prove the advertisement wrong. The situation could go either way like you have explained, but C raises the biggest question to the argument out of all the other options.
