Author 
Message 
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Intern
Joined: 17 Apr 2011
Posts: 17

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
Question Stats:
53% (02:36) correct
47% (01:39) wrong based on 298 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 businessfriendly 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 reeducation 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 businessfriendly 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....
Any help is welcome..
Regards, Vignesh
Official Answer and Stats are available only to registered users. Register/ Login.



VP
Status: There is always something new !!
Affiliations: PMI,QAI Global,eXampleCG
Joined: 08 May 2009
Posts: 1327

Re: Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the [#permalink]
Show Tags
06 Jun 2011, 02:07
1
This post was BOOKMARKED
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.
_________________
Visit  http://www.sustainablesphere.com/ Promote Green Business,Sustainable Living and Green Earth !!



Intern
Joined: 17 Apr 2011
Posts: 17

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



CEO
Status: Nothing comes easy: neither do I want.
Joined: 12 Oct 2009
Posts: 2784
Location: Malaysia
Concentration: Technology, Entrepreneurship
GMAT 1: 670 Q49 V31 GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V35

Re: Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the [#permalink]
Show Tags
08 Jun 2011, 10:15
what is wrong with A?
_________________
Fight for your dreams :For all those who fear from Verbal lets give it a fight
Money Saved is the Money Earned
Jo Bole So Nihaal , Sat Shri Akaal
Support GMAT Club by putting a GMAT Club badge on your blog/Facebook
GMAT Club Premium Membership  big benefits and savings
Gmat test review : http://gmatclub.com/forum/670to710alongjourneywithoutdestinationstillhappy141642.html



Math Forum Moderator
Joined: 20 Dec 2010
Posts: 2010

Re: Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the [#permalink]
Show Tags
08 Jun 2011, 13:58
1
This post received KUDOS
This so called CR question is more difficult that the most difficult word problem on percentages.
_________________
~fluke
GMAT Club Premium Membership  big benefits and savings



Current Student
Joined: 04 Mar 2013
Posts: 69
Location: India
Concentration: Strategy, Operations
GPA: 3.66
WE: Operations (Manufacturing)

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.



Verbal Forum Moderator
Joined: 16 Jun 2012
Posts: 1127
Location: United States

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 businessfriendly 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."
Chris Bangle  Former BMW Chief of Design.



Manager
Joined: 04 Jun 2013
Posts: 73

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



Manager
Joined: 20 Jul 2013
Posts: 62

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 businessfriendly 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 percentagetype 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".



GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 10170

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.



Intern
Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 19

Re: Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the [#permalink]
Show Tags
26 Mar 2016, 15:37
I don't think the answer provided is the correct answer.
What the politician actually says is : his policies reduced "the level of unemployment among those willing to work."
whether there were people dropped out of workforce is absolutely not relevant.




Re: Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the
[#permalink]
26 Mar 2016, 15:37







Moderators:
msk0657, mikemcgarry, Abhishek009, GMATNinjaTwo, Gnpth, Nevernevergiveup, sallysea, GMATNinja, carcass, hazelnut, souvik101990, yezz, nguyendinhtuong, chetan2u, Narenn
