Recently, highly skilled workers in Eastern Europe have left jobs in

Question

Recently, highly skilled workers in Eastern Europe have left jobs in record numbers to emigrate to the West. It is therefore likely that skilled workers who remain in Eastern Europe are in high demand in their home countries.

Which one of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?

(A) Eastern European factories prefer to hire workers from their home countries rather than to import workers from abroad.

(B) Major changes in Eastern European economic structures have led to the elimination of many positions previously held by the highly skilled emigrants.

(C) Many Eastern European emigrants need to acquire new skills after finding work in the West.

(D) Eastern European countries plan to train many new workers to replace the highly skilled workers who have emigrated.

(E) Because of the departure of skilled workers from Eastern European countries, many positions are now unfilled.

bipolarbear · Accepted Answer

I am almost certain the answer is B). The conclusion is that skilled workers who remain in Eastern Europe are in high demand in their home countries, so we must attack that conclusions.
A) strengthens, not weakens.
B) is the correct answer. If there aren't many jobs, then there is less demand, so therefore the workers may not be in high demand.
C) Not relevant
D) I considered this for a second, but just because they need to train new workers, that does not weaken the fact that skilled workers are in high demand. if anything, skilled workers would still be in demand which is why they are training unskilled workers.
E) strengthens, not weakens.

GMATNinja · Answer

Choice (D) is tempting because it suggests that skilled workers who remain in Eastern Europe  might  not be in such high demand once the new workers are trained. But remember that we are trying to weaken the argument that the skilled workers ARE (presently) in high demand. If anything, choice (D) is evidence that there is a high demand for skilled workers, and that is why the countries plan to train new workers to fill that demand.

Choice (B), on the other hand, suggests that there is no need to fill the jobs that were vacated when the highly skilled workers in Eastern Europe emigrated to the West. This suggests that there would NOT be a high demand for the skilled workers who remained in their home countries in Eastern Europe. Thus, choice (B) weakens the argument and is the correct answer.

lahoosaher · Answer

(B) negates the possibility of the rise in demand for skilled workers who remain in Eastern Europe by eliminating the possibility of the rise in the demand due to the major changes in Eastern European economic structures have led to the elimination of many positions previously held by the highly skilled emigrants.

IMO B

pqhai · Answer

Premise: a lot of high skilled workers left Eastern to the West.
Conclusion: skilled workers who remain in Eastern are in high demand.
Assumption:  the number of position  for skilled workers does  not decrease .

B is correct.

arkle · Answer

Okay, first we need to understand the question is about skilled workers who remain in Eastern Europe.

Premise -> Highly skilled workers left for whatever reasons(perhaps greener pastures) to other countries/West.
Conclusion -> People who remain will get better jobs/will be in high demand.

What can stop that from happening? Look for options that weaken the conclusion.

Let's look at the options -

A) Eastern European factories prefer to hire workers from their home countries rather than to import workers from abroad.

Strengthens it. It says Eastern European factories (old employment factories of highly skilled workers,maybe!) prefer to hire workers from their home countries rather than to import workers from abroad. That means skilled workers who remain in Eastern Europe will get preference in getting job.

(B) Major changes in Eastern European economic structures have led to the elimination of many positions previously held by the highly skilled emigrants.

This can ding the bright prospects. When we reached to the conclusion that People who remain in Eastern Europe will get better jobs/will be in high demand. We have made this Assumption --> all those jobs, in which highly skilled workers were employed in are still there or there are job vacancies. Wrong assumption as most of those jobs are gone..oops!

Weakens the conclusion and hence the right answer!

(C) Many Eastern European emigrants need to acquire new skills after finding work in the West. - Irrelevant. We are not concerned about folks who left.

(D) Eastern European countries plan to train many new workers to replace the highly skilled workers who have emigrated. - Sister of (A) Strengthens it.

(E) Because of the departure of skilled workers from Eastern European countries, many positions are now unfilled. - Strengthens the conclusion.

Senthil7 · Answer

Premise: -  Recently, highly skilled workers in Eastern Europe have left jobs in record numbers to emigrate to the West. 
 Conclusion:-  It is therefore likely that skilled workers who remain in Eastern Europe are in high demand in their home countries.

We are asked to weaken the argument , i.e, the conclusion. When we are asked to weaken the conclusion the answer choice must undermine the assumption that lead to the conclusion or provide an alternative means of achieving that conclusion or invalidate the conclusion with a logical reason.

(A) Eastern European factories prefer to hire workers from their home countries rather than to import workers from abroad.  - This wil strengthen the argument hence false.

(B) Major changes in Eastern European economic structures have led to the elimination of many positions previously held by the highly skilled emigrants  - This is the right answer as if this statement is true, it will invalidate or undermine the conclusion as if many positions will be eliminated there need not necessarily be a high demand for the remaining workers.

(C) Many Eastern European emigrants need to acquire new skills after finding work in the West  - This is out of scope on what already immigrated employees need to do.

(D) Eastern European countries plan to train many new workers to replace the highly skilled workers who have emigrated  - This broadens the scope of the argument and in a way strengthens the argument hence eliminate this.

(E) Because of the departure of skilled workers from Eastern European countries, many positions are now unfilled.  - this will strengthen the argument hence eliminate. 
.
 Correct choice, as explained above , is B

LarryM · Answer

Confused between B and D. Could someone clarify??

arvind910619 · Answer

Premise :Recently, highly skilled workers in Eastern Europe have left jobs in record numbers to emigrate to the West.
 
 Conclusion :It is therefore likely that skilled workers who remain in Eastern Europe are in high demand in their home countries.

As we can see to weaken the argument we have show some different reason for the conclusion or prove the conclusion false 
B just gives us another reason why highly skilled worker are leaving their jobs in eastern Europe an going to western Europe.

Skywalker18 · Answer

Highly skilled workers in Eastern Europe have left jobs to emigrate West---> Skilled workers who remain in Eastern Europe are in high demand in their home countries

So this argument is making a few assumptions:
 (1) It assumes that there already was not an overabundance of skilled workers to begin with. Maybe these highly skilled workers flooded the job market and over saturated it and, thus, when they left, more workers wouldn't really be in demand.
 (2) It also assumes that these workers are going to be replaced. Maybe the companies realized that they are better off without these workers and so they are just going to eliminate those jobs of the people that left. 
(3) It makes a small assumption about where these skilled workers are from. While the argument is saying that these workers will be in demand if they "remain" in Eastern Europe, it never mentions another about their "home countries." Thus, since the argument is concluding that these workers will be in high demand in their home countries, there could also be a correct answer saying something like, "Most of the skilled workers living in Eastern Europe now are from the United States, where which the job market is flooded with skilled workers."

(A) I think this is a tricky one. I thought it looked really good initially. However, "preferring" to hire workers from their home countries rather than importing workers actually seems to strengthen the argument a tiny bit. Sure, "preference" is not really indicative that there is "high demand" but it helps a tad. Either way, this answer choice absolutely does not weaken. We want an answer choice that says that these workers really still aren't in high demand.

(B) gives us this. This is very similar to what I predicted in (2). If workers are leaving but their jobs are going to be eliminated anyway, we start to have a little bit of doubt that there will be a "high demand" for new workers. Why would there be? Many positions are going to get eliminated! If there WAS a "high demand," there would be no need to eliminate these positions!

(C) We don't care about those expatriates that ditched their Eastern European homeland! We only care about those people that stayed!

(D) This actually strengthens a tiny bit because it shows a willingness for the Eastern Europeans to get back some skilled workers. If they plan to train them then we can assume that they need some more workers. If they need some more workers then I could safely say that there is some demand for workers!

(E) Also strengthens as tiny bit. These jobs are unfilled! Let's fill them!

bv8562 · Answer

GMATNinja  Could you please help me understand the argument?

GMATNinja · Answer

The author concludes that it is likely that skilled workers who remain in Eastern Europe will be in high demand. To support this conclusion, the author tells us that other skilled workers have left Eastern Europe and moved to Western Europe.

In other words, because so many skilled workers have left, the ones who remain must be in high demand. Makes sense, right? If you were highly skilled and a bunch of your peers left, then presumably a bunch of local businesses would be competing for you to work for them.

(B) weakens this argument by saying that the skilled positions have gone away. So, it's not that fewer skilled workers are available to fill the same number of jobs -- instead, there are fewer skilled workers and ALSO  fewer jobs  that require skilled workers. Because there are fewer roles to fill, skilled workers may not be in such high demand.

(B) is the correct answer.

I hope that helps!

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

Recently, highly skilled workers in Eastern Europe have left jobs in

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Recently, highly skilled workers in Eastern Europe have left jobs in

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards