imSKR wrote:
Hi Sir
GMATNinja . This question really need your expertise suggestion.
I read word by word and calculated mathematically but still i get C answer again and again and D is rejected again and again.
Please check why and HELP!@
GMATNinja 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 wrote:
Quote:
(C) Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
Your explanation:
Quote:
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.
My Explanation :
I think in the statement : Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
It talks about the same JOB that were created. IT means the average salary of LOST jobs was higher than average .
Hence the average would REDUCE for SURE. Mathematically,
Before number of jobs = X (100 ) and average salary U( 100$)
New jobs created = Y ( 50) and average salary V (>U)( 200$)
Average = 133.33$
New jobs lost = Z(10) and average salary V (>U)( 200$)
New new average=[ 100*100 + 50*200 – 10*200]/ (100+50-10)= 20000-5000/100 = 128.5$
Average SALARY IS DECREASED.
Hence STRENGTHENFirst, 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 wrote:
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.
Your explanation:
Quote:
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.
My Explanation: FINAL average would remain SAME( because average LOST == average CREATED)
Jobs lost but not lost jobs of higher salary.
It means:
Before number of jobs = X (100 ) and average salary U( 100$)
New jobs created = Y ( 50) and average salary V (>U)( 200$)
New average = 133.33$
Lost jobs = 50 and average salary 133.33 lost
New new average=[ 100*100 + 50*200 – 50*133.33]/ (100+50-50)= 20000-5000/100 = 133.33$
Average salary REMAIN SAME. Hence D only says it WOULD NOT INCREASE. BUT C proves REDUCE.
SO C is ahead of D.
hence final answer should be C.
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!
_________________
GMAT/GRE/EA tutors @
www.gmatninja.com (
hiring!) |
YouTube |
Articles |
IG Beginners' Guides:
RC |
CR |
SC |
Complete Resource Compilations:
RC |
CR |
SC YouTube LIVE webinars:
all videos by topic +
24-hour marathon for UkraineQuestion Explanation Collections:
RC |
CR |
SC
19 Jul 2020, 08:12
close
