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.
Nov 1912:30 PM EST
-01:30 PM EST
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
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2001:30 PM EST
-02:30 PM IST
Learn how Kamakshi achieved a GMAT 675 with an impressive 96th %ile in Data Insights. Discover the unique methods and exam strategies that helped her excel in DI along with other sections for a balanced and high score.
Nov 2211:00 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- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2407:00 PM PST
-08:00 PM PST
Full-length FE mock with insightful analytics, weakness diagnosis, and video explanations!
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
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.
19 Jul 2020, 08:12
Kudos
Bookmarks
imSKR
Here's a link to the post you've quoted, just so everyone is on the same page with what we're discussing here.
This question focuses on the conclusion of the advert: that the average paycheck in the city has been getting steadily bigger throughout the mayor's tenure.
We're asked to find the answer choice that most strengthens the argument in the advertisement that:
- Some jobs were lost in the city under Delmont's leadership
- BUT more jobs were created than were eliminated
- AND the average pay for those new jobs was HIGHER than the average pay for jobs citywide each year while Delmont was mayor.
Let's take a closer look at your calculations to try and find a solution to your problem:
imSKR
First, if your scenario is correct and the average citywide salary increased before decreasing then this would work against the idea that "the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger." This would weaken the argument, rather than strengthening it and so (C) could not be the answer to this question.
But the issue with (C) is we cannot tell if your scenario is correct.
You assume that the average salary of the jobs lost is the same as the average of the jobs created. The passage says:
- the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office
So, all we know is the average pay for these new jobs is higher than the average pay for jobs across the city. It's possible that some of the newly created jobs had a salary that was below the city average AND it's possible that these were the jobs that were lost in the meantime.
In this scenario, the loss of these newly created jobs would push the citywide average salary even higher.
However, we don't know this. It's equally possible that the jobs mentioned in (C) that were lost had salaries that were very high. This would reduce the average, as in your example.
Since we can't tell which scenario has taken place, we can't say that (C) strengthens the argument -- we just don't know.
This is why (C) can't be the answer to this question.
imSKR
Remember, the passage says that "the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger."
Consider what would happen if we took an average each year. The passage suggests that the new jobs created have a higher average pay than "the average pay for jobs citywide every year.".
Now, (D) tells us the jobs lost would have an average pay that is "roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide".
This is similar to the scenario you describe above but we need to compare the average at the start of the year -- $100 in your scenario -- to the average at the end of the year -- $133.33.
This process then happens every year during Mayor Delmont's tenure. Repeating this process of jobs being created and destroyed will steadily raise the average paycheck of the city's workers during the mayor's tenure.
This supports the argument in the passage and is why (D) is the answer to this question.
I hope that helps!
20 Jul 2020, 05:43
Kudos
Bookmarks
chunjuwu
Ad: Mayor's critics complain about lost jobs.
Number of New jobs > Lost jobs
Avg pay for new jobs > Avg pay for all jobs
Conclusion: Throughout Delmont's tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.
The point being made is that average pay check is getting bigger (because new jobs pay more than avg). Now here is the point - what if the jobs LOST were very very high paying? Since they were lost, the avg pay check decreased substantially. The new jobs started paying more than the current avg (which is lower than before). Then can we say that avg pay check has been getting bigger through the Mayor's tenure? No.
Say before Mayor's tenure, avg pay check was $60k.
Then Mayor's tenure started and some jobs paying $150k were lost and avg pay check came to $50k.
The new jobs added are paying $55k (more than the avg $50k).
Can we say that the avg pay check is steadily getting bigger? No. It went down due to loss of high paying jobs and the new jobs are paying more than the current lower average only. So what will strengthen the conclusion? If we can say that the jobs lost paid the same as avg, then our conclusion is strengthened.
Say jobs lost were paying $60k (avg at that time). So avg stays at 60k.
Now new jobs are paying more than $60k, say $65k.
Now we can say that the pay check is getting bigger.
So if we are told that the lost jobs paid the average amount (or lower), then the conclusion gets strengthened. This is what option (D) does.
(C) Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
Some new jobs have been eliminated doesn't help our conclusion. It doesn't guide us on whether the average pay check has become bigger or smaller.
Answer (D)
02 Feb 2021, 01:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
Let’s first understand the details of the argument in the political Advertisement:
Mayor Delmont's critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont's leadership.
Yet the fact is- more jobs were created than were eliminated
3) the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office.
Conclusion
Throughout Delmont's tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.
We need to find an option that will add to/ strengthen the conclusion.
Option 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.
Option A compares the average pay for jobs created during the past three years with the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmont's tenure. The conclusion talks about the average paycheck throughout Delmont’s tenure in the city. To strengthen the conclusion, we need to know the overall average. This would also require a comparison with the average pay for jobs that were eliminated during Delmont’s tenure.
Eliminate option A
Option B- Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
This does not give us information as to whether the average paycheck throughout Delmont’s tenure in the city has been getting bigger or not- eliminate
Option C- Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
But what we need to find out is whether the average paycheck throughout Delmont’s tenure in the city has been getting bigger or not- eliminate option C
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.
The argument states that the average pay for these new jobs, which have been created, has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office.
To simplify it,
The average pay for jobs eliminated = the average pay for jobs citywide < the average pay for new jobs
This strengthens the conclusion and is hence the right answer.
Option E- The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.
Option E compares the average pay for jobs in the city with the average pay for jobs in suburbs- This is irrelevant to the argument and is hence eliminated.
Vishnupriya
CrackVerbal Prep Team
Mayor Delmont's critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont's leadership.
Yet the fact is- more jobs were created than were eliminated
3) the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office.
Conclusion
Throughout Delmont's tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.
We need to find an option that will add to/ strengthen the conclusion.
Option 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.
Option A compares the average pay for jobs created during the past three years with the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmont's tenure. The conclusion talks about the average paycheck throughout Delmont’s tenure in the city. To strengthen the conclusion, we need to know the overall average. This would also require a comparison with the average pay for jobs that were eliminated during Delmont’s tenure.
Eliminate option A
Option B- Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.
This does not give us information as to whether the average paycheck throughout Delmont’s tenure in the city has been getting bigger or not- eliminate
Option C- Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
But what we need to find out is whether the average paycheck throughout Delmont’s tenure in the city has been getting bigger or not- eliminate option C
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.
The argument states that the average pay for these new jobs, which have been created, has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office.
To simplify it,
The average pay for jobs eliminated = the average pay for jobs citywide < the average pay for new jobs
This strengthens the conclusion and is hence the right answer.
Option E- The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.
Option E compares the average pay for jobs in the city with the average pay for jobs in suburbs- This is irrelevant to the argument and is hence eliminated.
Vishnupriya
CrackVerbal Prep Team
