GMAT Question of the Day - Daily to your Mailbox; hard ones only

 It is currently 19 Jun 2018, 15:03

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

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

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

MBA Section Director
Joined: 19 Mar 2012
Posts: 5176
Location: India
GMAT 1: 760 Q50 V42
GPA: 3.8
WE: Marketing (Non-Profit and Government)

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2017, 03:43
13
00:00

Difficulty:

75% (hard)

Question Stats:

52% (01:53) correct 48% (01:47) wrong based on 556 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 167: Critical Reasoning

Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

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.

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.

_________________
Manager
Joined: 20 Apr 2013
Posts: 149

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2017, 04:49
3
Should be D. Argument is stating that the average pay for "new jobs" has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide.

On the basis of average pay for new jobs, if the argument is concluding about average pay for "city" getting bigger, then what strengthens the argument is that average pay for jobs eliminated in the city has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.

If this is not true and average pay for jobs eliminated in the city has significantly higher than the average pay for jobs citywide, then addition of new jobs at higher than the average pay for jobs citywide, would not necessarily push the average for the city higher.
VP
Status: Learning
Joined: 20 Dec 2015
Posts: 1159
Location: India
Concentration: Operations, Marketing
GMAT 1: 670 Q48 V36
GRE 1: 314 Q157 V157
GPA: 3.4
WE: Manufacturing and Production (Manufacturing)

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2017, 18:59
souvik101990 wrote:

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 167: Critical Reasoning

Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

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.

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.

Hi mikemcgarry

How are you ?

Why A is not the correct answer even though it mentions that the jobs that were created had greater average pay in since last three years .
I think the time period mentioned in A put us off . It might have happened that before last three years Mayor had a dismal performance in terms of job creation.

D on the other hand talks about jobs that were eliminated had average pay that were roughly equal to the average pay for jobs citywide.
It mentions that both pay ere roughly equal then how can this option be out answer ?

Regards,
Arvind
_________________

Manager
Joined: 20 Apr 2013
Posts: 149

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2017, 22:20
1
Yes Arvind. So, consider the following pieces of information:

i) 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 (according to option D).
ii) Average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide (as per the passage)

So, if you combine these two pieces of info, we can conclude that average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

For example, suppose there are 100 people and average pay right now is \$10.

Suppose 5 jobs were eliminated. As per option D, average pay for jobs eliminated = \$5.

Average pay for 5 "new jobs" that were created in place on eliminated jobs = \$7 (Average pay for these new jobs is higher than \$5, as per the passage)

So, new average = (100*10 - 5*5 + 5*7)/100 = \$10.12

So, old average was \$10, new average is \$10.12.

This proves that average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 1749
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: 340 Q170 V170

### Show Tags

30 Nov 2017, 23:40
6
4
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:

• 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.
_________________

GMAT Club Verbal Expert | GMAT/GRE tutor @ www.gmatninja.com (Now hiring!) | GMAT blog | Food blog | Notoriously bad at PMs

Beginners' guides to GMAT verbal
Reading Comprehension | Critical Reasoning | Sentence Correction

Series 1: Fundamentals of SC & CR | Series 2: Developing a Winning GMAT Mindset

SC & CR Questions of the Day (QOTDs), featuring expert explanations
All QOTDs | Subscribe via email | RSS

Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja and @GMATNinjaTwo in your post. Priority is always given to official GMAT questions.

Sentence Correction articles & resources
How to go from great (760) to incredible (780) on GMAT SC | That "-ing" Word Probably Isn't a Verb | That "-ed" Word Might Not Be a Verb, Either | No-BS Guide to GMAT Idioms | "Being" is not the enemy | WTF is "that" doing in my sentence?

Reading Comprehension, Critical Reasoning, and other articles & resources
All GMAT Ninja articles on GMAT Club | Using LSAT for GMAT CR & RC |7 reasons why your actual GMAT scores don't match your practice test scores | How to get 4 additional "fake" GMAT Prep tests for \$29.99 | Time management on verbal

Senior Manager
Joined: 03 Apr 2013
Posts: 288
Location: India
Concentration: Marketing, Finance
Schools: Simon '20
GMAT 1: 740 Q50 V41
GPA: 3

### Show Tags

02 Dec 2017, 00:45
souvik101990 wrote:

Verbal Question of The Day: Day 167: Critical Reasoning

Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS

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.

Every question of the day will be followed by an expert reply by GMATNinja in 12-15 hours. Stay tuned! Post your answers and explanations to earn kudos.

The answer is D. This question is more of a DS question than a CR question. If it is treated as a DS question, then answering this one becomes much easier.

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

Spread some love..Like = +1 Kudos

Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 140

### Show Tags

06 Dec 2017, 12:52
2
arvind910619 wrote:
Hi mikemcgarry

How are you ?

Why A is not the correct answer even though it mentions that the jobs that were created had greater average pay in since last three years .
I think the time period mentioned in A put us off . It might have happened that before last three years Mayor had a dismal performance in terms of job creation.

D on the other hand talks about jobs that were eliminated had average pay that were roughly equal to the average pay for jobs citywide.
It mentions that both pay ere roughly equal then how can this option be out answer ?

Regards,
Arvind

Hi arvind910619! Carolyn from Magoosh here - I can step in for Mike

It looks like GMATNinja has already given a great explanation for this:

GMATNinja wrote:
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.

If you're still confused by something here, let me know and I'll be happy to explain this further!

-Carolyn
_________________

Magoosh Test Prep

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 272

### Show Tags

22 Mar 2018, 06:12
Hi all, mikemcgarry, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja, MagooshExpert Carolyn, sayantanc2k,
I am not sure whether my approach is good, but I want to share it.

if you are familiar with "weight average" in quantitative, I think it will not be so hard.

for example
if the new job is 10, the eliminate job is 8, the citywide average wage is 100,
#1 then as long as the ration of eliminated job's average wage to new job's average wage is 10/8, then the new citywide average is also 100,
#2 if the ration is less than 10/8, then the new average wage is less than 100,
#3 if the ration is greater than 10/8, then the new average is greater than 100,

if there are any problem, please point out

Have a nice day
>_~
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
Joined: 30 Oct 2017
Posts: 140

### Show Tags

23 Mar 2018, 20:07
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi all, mikemcgarry, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja, MagooshExpert Carolyn, sayantanc2k,
I am not sure whether my approach is good, but I want to share it.

if you are familiar with "weight average" in quantitative, I think it will not be so hard.

for example
if the new job is 10, the eliminate job is 8, the citywide average wage is 100,
#1 then as long as the ration of eliminated job's average wage to new job's average wage is 10/8, then the new citywide average is also 100,
#2 if the ration is less than 10/8, then the new average wage is less than 100,
#3 if the ration is greater than 10/8, then the new average is greater than 100,

if there are any problem, please point out

Have a nice day
>_~

Hi zoezhuyan,

Nice thinking, your logic here is great!

-Carolyn
_________________

Magoosh Test Prep

Senior Manager
Joined: 17 Sep 2016
Posts: 272

### Show Tags

24 Mar 2018, 05:14
MagooshExpert wrote:
zoezhuyan wrote:
Hi all, mikemcgarry, GMATNinjaTwo, GMATNinja, MagooshExpert Carolyn, sayantanc2k,
I am not sure whether my approach is good, but I want to share it.

if you are familiar with "weight average" in quantitative, I think it will not be so hard.

for example
if the new job is 10, the eliminate job is 8, the citywide average wage is 100,
#1 then as long as the ration of eliminated job's average wage to new job's average wage is 10/8, then the new citywide average is also 100,
#2 if the ration is less than 10/8, then the new average wage is less than 100,
#3 if the ration is greater than 10/8, then the new average is greater than 100,

if there are any problem, please point out

Have a nice day
>_~

Hi zoezhuyan,

Nice thinking, your logic here is great!

-Carolyn

Thanks so much for your confirmation, MagooshExpert Carolyn

because weight average is from quantitive, at beginning, i am not sure a quantitive approach will be fitted on CR questions.
Now, i feel great,

Have a nice day
>_~
Display posts from previous: Sort by