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

 It is currently 09 Dec 2019, 10:54

### 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

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

Senior Manager
Status: Finally Done. Admitted in Kellogg for 2015 intake
Joined: 25 Jun 2011
Posts: 439
Location: United Kingdom
GMAT 1: 730 Q49 V45
GPA: 2.9
WE: Information Technology (Consulting)

### Show Tags

10 Nov 2011, 15:35
3
33
00:00

Difficulty:

25% (medium)

Question Stats:

76% (02:02) correct 24% (02:13) wrong based on 1127 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.

LINK : Similar question with Strengthening the conclusion.

_________________
Best Regards,
E.

MGMAT 1 --> 530
MGMAT 2--> 640
MGMAT 3 ---> 610
GMAT ==> 730
Intern
Joined: 18 Dec 2013
Posts: 24
GPA: 2.84
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)

### Show Tags

13 Oct 2014, 19:35
8
1
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...

##### General Discussion
Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Posts: 120
Location: United States
GPA: 3.97

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2014, 08:18
1
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.
Manager
Joined: 17 Mar 2014
Posts: 120
Location: United States
GPA: 3.97

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2014, 08:39
1
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?
Intern
Joined: 18 Dec 2013
Posts: 24
GPA: 2.84
WE: Project Management (Telecommunications)

### Show Tags

14 Oct 2014, 09:31
2
1
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!
Intern
Joined: 01 Jul 2014
Posts: 14

### Show Tags

14 Mar 2016, 07:36
i have a doubt in understanding answer D. does this option want to say that ratio of avg pay for the jobs eliminated every year to avg pay for the city is constant. please elaborate. tia..
Manager
Joined: 18 Jun 2016
Posts: 86
Location: India
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 700 Q49 V36

### Show Tags

07 Sep 2016, 08:41
3
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

Intern
Joined: 01 Apr 2017
Posts: 30

### Show Tags

08 Oct 2018, 07:36
A. The unemployment rate in the city is higher today than it was when Mayor Delmont took office.
discussion is abt pay not unemployement. irrelevant

B. The average pay for jobs in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
its actually strengthening not weaking.

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.
it clearly states old jobs also had higher pay. hence enough to conclude that mayor didnt do anything

D. Most of the jobs eliminated during Mayor Delmont’s tenure were in declining industries.
industry is out of scope.
E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently lower than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.
Manager
Joined: 05 Oct 2017
Posts: 66
Location: India
Schools: GWU '21, Isenberg'21

### Show Tags

03 Dec 2018, 06:14
Same Argument but different question in the following link.
Great explanation by VerbalNinja

Hope it helps
_________________
Director
Joined: 06 Jan 2015
Posts: 697
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Finance
GPA: 3.35
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)

### Show Tags

31 Jul 2019, 22:43

Similar question with Strengthening the conclusion.

_________________
आत्मनॊ मोक्षार्थम् जगद्धिताय च

Resource: GMATPrep RCs With Solution
Manager
Joined: 31 Jan 2019
Posts: 216
Location: Switzerland
Concentration: General Management
GPA: 3.9

### Show Tags

08 Aug 2019, 01:04
1
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?

Pre-thinking:
An assumption made by the author is that the average paycheck citywide did not significantly decrease otherwise the increase in average paycheck for the jobs created would not compensate for the decrease.
So any statement weakening this assumption should weaken the argument.

A. The unemployment rate in the city is higher today than it was when Mayor Delmont took office.
The unemployment rate is not of our concern here. We are interested in the average paycheck. Hence incorrect

B. The average pay for jobs in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
This suggests that probably the increase in the average paychecks of jobs created helped raising the average. But we don't know the average paycheck of the jobs eliminated so this answer choice does not have a clear impact on the conclusion. Hence incorrect

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 information suggests a decrease in the average paycheck.

D. Most of the jobs eliminated during Mayor Delmont’s tenure were in declining industries.
The area of the eliminated job is irrelevant to the argument. Hence incorrect.

E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently lower than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.
The average o the city and of the suburbs is irrelevant to the argument since they could compensate for each other or not. Hence incorrect
Display posts from previous: Sort by