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 Your Progress

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

Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.

It appears that you are browsing the GMAT Club forum unregistered!

Signing up is free, quick, and confidential.
Join other 500,000 members and get the full benefits of GMAT Club

Registration gives you:

Tests

Take 11 tests and quizzes from GMAT Club and leading GMAT prep companies such as Manhattan GMAT,
Knewton, and others. All are free for GMAT Club members.

Applicant Stats

View detailed applicant stats such as GPA, GMAT score, work experience, location, application
status, and more

Books/Downloads

Download thousands of study notes,
question collections, GMAT Club’s
Grammar and Math books.
All are free!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the [#permalink]

Show Tags

06 Jun 2011, 01:14

2

This post received KUDOS

8

This post was BOOKMARKED

00:00

A

B

C

D

E

Difficulty:

65% (hard)

Question Stats:

53% (02:36) correct
47% (01:40) wrong based on 296 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the percentage of people who are looking for work but are unable to find it has dropped from 7% to 5% of the total number of people either working or looking for work. These statistics show that it is clear that my administration’s business-friendly policies have helped reduce the level of unemployment among those willing to work.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the politician’s argument relies?

A. The previous administration’s worker re-education program had no significant effect on the unemployment rate. B. Less than 2% of the population that were working or willing to work at the start of the politician’s term have stopped working or looking for work. C. None of the new jobs created during the politician’s term went to those who already had jobs. D. Most of those looking for employment found jobs in the field they were trained in. E. The politician’s business-friendly policies have had a direct affect on the ability of firms to hire more workers

The answer given is B.I don't understand why....For example,say there are 100 ppl in the workforce(93 working,7 ppl willing to work but jobless)....The argument says this 7% unemployment rate goes down to 5%...There are many possible cases now....

Case 1:Nobody withdraws from the workforce the split becomes (95 working,5 jobless) and this favor's the politician's stance.

Case 2:People withdraw from the workforce...here again we have 2 sub cases. 2.1. people who were working withdraw from the workforce. In this case, the workforce (denominator)shrinks whereas the number of jobless people remains unaffected....In such a case the unemployment rate definitely increases

2.2.Jobless people withdraw. This is the case in question for this problem.In this case ,both the numerator and denominator decrease...I am not very sure how a figure of 2% is arrived at whether the net effect of such a situation is always a resultant decrease.In this case say 1 jobless person withdraws,we are left with 99 in the denominator and 5 (5% of 99 approx) in the numerator.This means there are 5 unemployed people and 94 employed people.This is a desirable scenario compared to a (93,7) figure

Now, consider 3 jobless people withdrawing.....Now we have 97 people in the dnominator (5 unemployed,92 employed ...is this desirable or not??I am not sure....

Re: Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the [#permalink]

Show Tags

08 Jun 2011, 08:18

I think the key to this question is the interpretation that all the percentages involved are with respect to the first year.....Pl correct me if I am wrong... Regards, Vignesh

Re: Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 19:52

amit2k9 wrote:

There is a reasoning gap for the statistics mentioned in the argument here.Hence a supporter answer choice is needed.

Between A and B.

A gives a defender answer choice warding off external effect. POE.

B Out of 100 people looking for work, 7 not working old out of 100 people looking for work, 5 not working new

negating - more than 2% people have stopped looking for work.

out of 97 people looking for work, 5 not working possible for the new condition.

This crashes the conclusion that the schemes have brought down the unemployment index.

Hence B here.

Sorry for reopening this old argument. But whats wrong with E B seems to indicate that less than 2% for example 19 out of a 1000 people have dropped out of the work force and therefor the % of employed has improved but the actual number of people employed might not have increased.

So for the politician to claim credit for this improvement the actual numbers employed should have increased. Wouldnt option E be the assumption that the politician would make to supplement his claim

Or is it that GMAT considers all politicians to be statistic manipulators
_________________

When you feel like giving up, remember why you held on for so long in the first place.

Re: Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jun 2013, 22:14

4

This post received KUDOS

aceacharya wrote:

amit2k9 wrote:

There is a reasoning gap for the statistics mentioned in the argument here.Hence a supporter answer choice is needed.

Between A and B.

A gives a defender answer choice warding off external effect. POE.

B Out of 100 people looking for work, 7 not working old out of 100 people looking for work, 5 not working new

negating - more than 2% people have stopped looking for work.

out of 97 people looking for work, 5 not working possible for the new condition.

This crashes the conclusion that the schemes have brought down the unemployment index.

Hence B here.

Sorry for reopening this old argument. But whats wrong with E B seems to indicate that less than 2% for example 19 out of a 1000 people have dropped out of the work force and therefor the % of employed has improved but the actual number of people employed might not have increased.

So for the politician to claim credit for this improvement the actual numbers employed should have increased. Wouldnt option E be the assumption that the politician would make to supplement his claim

Or is it that GMAT considers all politicians to be statistic manipulators

Hi aceacharya

I'm glad to help.

Before answer you questions, please make sure you understand the fact correctly:

Fact: The percentage of people who are looking for work but are unable to find it has dropped from 7% to 5% of the total number of people either working or looking for work. ==> The formula is: The ratio = Number of people are unable to find job/ [Number of people working + Number of people are looking for job]

The decrease from 7% to 5% only makes sense if The denominator [Number of people working + Number of people are looking for job] increases or does not change. If the denominator decreases as well, The percentage decrease does not make any point.

E) The politician’s business-friendly policies have had a direct affect on the ability of firms to hire more workers The firms hire more people ==> Number of people get hired increase. But what happens if many people looking for job STOP finding job or many people who are working QUIT their job ==> The denominator will decrease. Clearly, the reduction to 5% does not make any sense ==> E cannot be the assumption.

B) Less than 2% of the population that were working or willing to work at the start of the politician’s term have stopped working or looking for work. B means the denominator DOES NOT DECREASE too much to make the percentage reduction be nonsensical.

You say “the % of employed has improved but the actual number of people employed might not have increased” is not correct. If the denominator decreases less than 2%, the number of people get hired must increase.

I will borrow your example: There are 1000 people (working + looking job). Before: 7% are unable to find job ==> number of people employed = 1000 – 70 = 930 After: 5% are unable to find job + 1.5% (less than 2%) stop looking for job ==> number of people employed = 1000 – 50 – 15 = 935

Hence, B is correct.

Hope it helps.
_________________

Please +1 KUDO if my post helps. Thank you.

"Designing cars consumes you; it has a hold on your spirit which is incredibly powerful. It's not something you can do part time, you have do it with all your heart and soul or you're going to get it wrong."

Re: Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the [#permalink]

Show Tags

14 Jun 2014, 03:27

amit2k9 wrote:

There is a reasoning gap for the statistics mentioned in the argument here.Hence a supporter answer choice is needed.

Between A and B.

A gives a defender answer choice warding off external effect. POE.

B Out of 100 people looking for work, 7 not working old out of 100 people looking for work, 5 not working new

negating - more than 2% people have stopped looking for work.

out of 97 people looking for work, 5 not working possible for the new condition.

This crashes the conclusion that the schemes have brought down the unemployment index.

Hence B here.

Hi, I didnt exactly get what you mean by saying that A gives a defender answer choice warding off external effect. Like you negated option B, if we negate option A, we have that The previous administration's worker reeducation program had a significant effect on the unemployment rate. It means if The previous administration's worker reeducation program have had a significant effect, then this administration's business friendly policies have not done anything to reduce the unemployment rate. This crashes the conclusion. Though, I agree on what you have done by negating option B, but since we are talking about an assumption, we need a building block between the conclusion and the premise. The conclusion here talks about the 'ROLE OF BUSINESS FRIENDLY POLICIES IN REDUCING UNEMPLOYMENT' while the premise is the stats. We need an answer actually linking the two. On negating option B we can say that the stats are disturbed and thus, unemployment might not have reduced, but here we in no way talk about the way i.e. THE BUSINESS POLICIES OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION' of reducing the unemployment. I think if the question asked us to strengthen the conclusion, then option B could have been the answer as then on negating the option, the premise was attacked. But here, since we are asked about the assumption, we cannot just mark this answer as it disturbed the stats. Rather, we need an option to link the conclusion and premise. IMO, the answer should be A. I hope you get what I am trying to say. I would definitely like some expert to comment on it. @Magoosh

Re: Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the [#permalink]

Show Tags

15 Jun 2014, 07:34

pqhai wrote:

aceacharya wrote:

amit2k9 wrote:

There is a reasoning gap for the statistics mentioned in the argument here.Hence a supporter answer choice is needed.

Between A and B.

A gives a defender answer choice warding off external effect. POE.

B Out of 100 people looking for work, 7 not working old out of 100 people looking for work, 5 not working new

negating - more than 2% people have stopped looking for work.

out of 97 people looking for work, 5 not working possible for the new condition.

This crashes the conclusion that the schemes have brought down the unemployment index.

Hence B here.

Sorry for reopening this old argument. But whats wrong with E B seems to indicate that less than 2% for example 19 out of a 1000 people have dropped out of the work force and therefor the % of employed has improved but the actual number of people employed might not have increased.

So for the politician to claim credit for this improvement the actual numbers employed should have increased. Wouldnt option E be the assumption that the politician would make to supplement his claim

Or is it that GMAT considers all politicians to be statistic manipulators

Hi aceacharya

I'm glad to help.

Before answer you questions, please make sure you understand the fact correctly:

Fact: The percentage of people who are looking for work but are unable to find it has dropped from 7% to 5% of the total number of people either working or looking for work. ==> The formula is: The ratio = Number of people are unable to find job/ [Number of people working + Number of people are looking for job]

The decrease from 7% to 5% only makes sense if The denominator [Number of people working + Number of people are looking for job] increases or does not change. If the denominator decreases as well, The percentage decrease does not make any point.

E) The politician’s business-friendly policies have had a direct affect on the ability of firms to hire more workers The firms hire more people ==> Number of people get hired increase. But what happens if many people looking for job STOP finding job or many people who are working QUIT their job ==> The denominator will decrease. Clearly, the reduction to 5% does not make any sense ==> E cannot be the assumption.

B) Less than 2% of the population that were working or willing to work at the start of the politician’s term have stopped working or looking for work. B means the denominator DOES NOT DECREASE too much to make the percentage reduction be nonsensical.

You say “the % of employed has improved but the actual number of people employed might not have increased” is not correct. If the denominator decreases less than 2%, the number of people get hired must increase.

I will borrow your example: There are 1000 people (working + looking job). Before: 7% are unable to find job ==> number of people employed = 1000 – 70 = 930 After: 5% are unable to find job + 1.5% (less than 2%) stop looking for job ==> number of people employed = 1000 – 50 – 15 = 935

Hence, B is correct.

Hope it helps.

Nice interpretation.

I always find that setting up a ratio for these percentage-type CR problems is a great way to find the answer.

In this particular case, Choice B is the only one that draws a bridge between the premise and conclusion --- directly affecting "the demonator in the equation".

Re: Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the [#permalink]

Show Tags

20 Dec 2015, 05:14

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

There’s something in Pacific North West that you cannot find anywhere else. The atmosphere and scenic nature are next to none, with mountains on one side and ocean on...

This month I got selected by Stanford GSB to be included in “Best & Brightest, Class of 2017” by Poets & Quants. Besides feeling honored for being part of...

Joe Navarro is an ex FBI agent who was a founding member of the FBI’s Behavioural Analysis Program. He was a body language expert who he used his ability to successfully...