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 2110:00 AM EDT
-11:59 PM EDT
Get a massive $325 off the TTP OnDemand GMAT course by using the coupon code FLASH25 at checkout. If you prefer learning through engaging video lessons, TTP OnDemand GMAT is exactly what you need.
Apr 2310:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Join us for an insightful conversation with Angelo Adams, first generation college student and President of Zipcar, as he takes us through his remarkable journey from the U.S. Army to becoming the CEO of a leading car-sharing company in the US.- Apr 24
10:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
In this exclusive conversation, Amit, an MBA graduate from India, shares his inspiring journey from scoring a stellar 740 on the GMAT to securing admission with scholarships into top US MBA programs .... 
Apr 2611:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Apr 27
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this session to evaluate your current skill level, learn process skills, and solve through tough Arithmetic questions. 
Apr 2711:30 AM EDT
-12:30 PM EDT
Learn how Keshav, a Chartered Accountant, scored an impressive 705 on GMAT in just 30 days with GMATWhiz's expert guidance. In this video, he shares preparation tips and strategies that worked for him, including the mock, time management, and more.
Apr 2810:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
The Target Test Prep GMAT Flash Sale is LIVE! Get 25% off our game-changing course and save up to $450 today! Use code FLASH25 at checkout. This limited-time deal won’t last long, so grab your discount now!
Apr 2808:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
D
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
75%
(hard)
Question Stats:
57% (02:18) correct
43%
(02:21)
wrong
based on 9376
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
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 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.
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.
ID: 500289
30 Nov 2017, 23:40
Kudos
Bookmarks
The conclusion of this political ad is that "there can be no question that throughout {Mayor Delmont's} tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger." Before we look for an answer choice that strengthens the argument, let's make sure we clearly understand the ad's reasoning:
Notice that the ad is comparing the average pay of the NEW jobs to the average pay of jobs citywide. The ad is NOT comparing the average pay of the new jobs to the average pay of the jobs that were eliminated. But if we don't know how much we are LOSING (i.e. the average pay of the jobs that were eliminated), how can we be sure that we have a net increase in average pay overall? Sure, the NUMBER of jobs is increasing, but if the new jobs pay less, on average, than the lost jobs, the result would be a net DECREASE in average citywide pay.
The ad concludes that the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger throughout the mayor's tenure. We need an answer choice that strengthens this argument:
The ad compares the average pay of the NEW jobs to the average pay of jobs citywide. But how does the average pay of the new jobs compare to the average pay of the jobs that were lost? What if the average pay of the jobs lost was HIGHER than the average pay of the new jobs? In that case, there would have been a net DECREASE in average pay citywide, contradicting the conclusion of the ad.
Choice (D) assures us that this is NOT the case. The average pay of the lost jobs was roughly equal to the average pay for jobs citywide. We already know that the average pay of the new jobs was greater than the average pay for jobs citywide. Given statement (D), we now know that the average pay of the new jobs must also have been greater than the average pay of the lost jobs. Choice (D) definitely strengthens the argument.
Choice (D) is the best answer.
- We know that some jobs were lost in the city under Delmont's leadership. The ad does not dispute this fact, and the mayor's critics complain about this fact.
- The ad responds to this criticism by noting that more jobs were created than were eliminated. So there was actually a net INCREASE in the number of jobs while Delmont was mayor.
- Furthermore, the average pay for those new jobs was HIGHER than the average pay for jobs citywide each year while Delmont was mayor.
Notice that the ad is comparing the average pay of the NEW jobs to the average pay of jobs citywide. The ad is NOT comparing the average pay of the new jobs to the average pay of the jobs that were eliminated. But if we don't know how much we are LOSING (i.e. the average pay of the jobs that were eliminated), how can we be sure that we have a net increase in average pay overall? Sure, the NUMBER of jobs is increasing, but if the new jobs pay less, on average, than the lost jobs, the result would be a net DECREASE in average citywide pay.
The ad concludes that the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger throughout the mayor's tenure. We need an answer choice that strengthens this argument:
Quote:
(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.
We know that the average pay for the new jobs was higher than the average pay for jobs citywide each year since Delmont took office. Choice (A) simply tells us that the average pay for the new jobs created during the past three years was higher than the average pay for the new jobs created earlier in the mayor's tenure. So the average pay for the new jobs went up, but what about the average paycheck citywide? Has that been increasing as well? What if the average pay of the LOST jobs exceeded the average pay of the NEW jobs each year? We still can't determine whether the OVERALL average increased or decreased, so (A) doesn't strengthen (or weaken) the argument. Quote:
(B) Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
The average pay was at a ten-year low when Delmont took office, but what happened AFTER he took office? For example, say that Delmont's term began in 2007. Average pay may have steadily DECLINED from 1997 to 2007, so in 2007 average pay would have been at a ten-year low. Did the average pay then increase or did it continue to decrease? Choice (B) doesn't tell us either way, so it doesn't strengthen or weaken the argument. Eliminate (B).Quote:
(C) Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
We already know that there has been a net increase in the NUMBER of jobs since the mayor has taken office. This is true regardless of whether choice (C) is true. Either way, we still don't know whether the average paycheck in the city has increased or decreased because we don't know anything about the average pay of the lost jobs. (C) doesn't impact the argument and can be eliminated.Quote:
(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 ad compares the average pay of the NEW jobs to the average pay of jobs citywide. But how does the average pay of the new jobs compare to the average pay of the jobs that were lost? What if the average pay of the jobs lost was HIGHER than the average pay of the new jobs? In that case, there would have been a net DECREASE in average pay citywide, contradicting the conclusion of the ad.
Choice (D) assures us that this is NOT the case. The average pay of the lost jobs was roughly equal to the average pay for jobs citywide. We already know that the average pay of the new jobs was greater than the average pay for jobs citywide. Given statement (D), we now know that the average pay of the new jobs must also have been greater than the average pay of the lost jobs. Choice (D) definitely strengthens the argument.
Quote:
(E) The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.
We only care about what happened to the average paycheck in this city. How the average pay for jobs in the city compares to the average pay for jobs in the surrounding suburbs does not tell us whether the average paycheck in the city has decreased or increased. Choice (E) is not relevant to the argument in this ad and can be eliminated.Choice (D) is the best answer.
Updated on: 05 May 2009, 21:38
Originally posted by Minheequang on 05 May 2009, 19:17.
Last edited by Minheequang on 05 May 2009, 21:38, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by Minheequang on 05 May 2009, 21:38, edited 1 time in total.
Kudos
Bookmarks
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
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
