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

It is currently 19 Dec 2018, 05:49

TODAY:

MIT Sloan R1 Decisions - Join MIT Chat for Live Updates | Chat with UCLA Anderson Adcom @9am PT | Chat with Yale SOM R1 Admit 10am PT


Close

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
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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel
Events & Promotions in December
PrevNext
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
2526272829301
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
303112345
Open Detailed Calendar
  • Happy Christmas 20% Sale! Math Revolution All-In-One Products!

     December 20, 2018

     December 20, 2018

     10:00 PM PST

     11:00 PM PST

    This is the most inexpensive and attractive price in the market. Get the course now!
  • Key Strategies to Master GMAT SC

     December 22, 2018

     December 22, 2018

     07:00 AM PST

     09:00 AM PST

    Attend this webinar to learn how to leverage Meaning and Logic to solve the most challenging Sentence Correction Questions.

Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 08 Jul 2004
Posts: 575
Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post Updated on: 10 Oct 2018, 00:07
22
85
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  75% (hard)

Question Stats:

55% (01:10) correct 45% (01:22) wrong based on 3743 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.

Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.

Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that


(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded

(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population

(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population

(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents

(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics


Spoiler: :: EXPLANATION
Argument Construction

Situation
Roland is alarmed that 90 percent of the population knows someone who is out of work. Sharon replies that a normal level of unemployment is 5 percent, illustrating her point by saying that if a person knows 50 workers, at least one of them is likely to be unemployed.

Reasoning
What assumption does Sharon make in putting together her argument? Sharon makes a general statement claiming that if a person knows 50 workers, it is likely that at least one of them is unemployed. Sharon’s generalization would not likely be true if unemployment were concentrated in certain geographically isolated areas.

(A) Sharon’s argument is about a normal level of unemployment; how rarely or frequently that level is exceeded is outside the scope of her argument.

(B) Correct. This statement properly identifies an assumption that underlies Sharon’s argument.

(C) Although Sharon’s argument is compatible with saying that even more than 90 percent of the population knows someone who is unemployed, nothing suggests that she assumes that this is true.

(D) Sharon’s argument is not based on the figure Roland cites and does not assume its accuracy or inaccuracy; her argument merely points out that his figure is not inconsistent with a normal rate
of unemployment.

(E) The fear of losing a job is not part of Sharon’s argument; this statement is irrelevant.

The correct answer is B.


Verbal Question of The Day: Day 248: Critical Reasoning


Subscribe to GMAT Question of the Day: E-mail | RSS
For All QOTD Questions Click Here


The Official Guide for GMAT Review, 10th Edition, 2003

Practice Question
Question No.: CR 139
Page: 534



"Roland" Conclusion Question

Originally posted by saurya_s on 09 Sep 2004, 13:36.
Last edited by Bunuel on 10 Oct 2018, 00:07, edited 2 times in total.
Renamed the topic and edited the question.
Most Helpful Expert Reply
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
User avatar
P
Status: GMAT and GRE tutor
Joined: 13 Aug 2009
Posts: 2154
Location: United States
GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46
GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51
GRE 1: Q170 V170
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Mar 2018, 02:47
9
4
The heart of Sharon's argument is pretty straightforward: she thinks that what Roland sees is somewhat "normal", and not "alarming".

Let’s break down the reasoning behind her argument:

    1. A "normal" unemployment rate is 1/20.
    2. So if you know 20 typical workers, odds are good that one will be unemployed.
    3. And then if you know 50 workers, at least 1 of them will probably be unemployed.
    4. Therefore, it’s likely at any given time that 90% of people in the country know at least 1 unemployed person.

In her reasoning, Sharon refers to nationwide levels of unemployment. When she jumps to step 4 of her argument, she assumes that the employment patterns of the 50 workers each of us knows personally will resemble the nationwide employment patterns. In order to accept this assumption, we need evidence that the normal unemployment rate in any given area will roughly match the normal rate of unemployment for the entire country. Otherwise, it could be the case that the unemployed workers are overwhelmingly concentrated in a few parts of the country, and most people elsewhere might NOT know any unemployed workers.

So Sharon's argument relies on which of these assumptions?

Quote:
(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded

It makes no difference whether normal levels of unemployment are exceeded rarely or frequently. As long as the current level of unemployment is normal, then Sharon’s argument is valid.

In other words, normal levels of unemployment could be exceeded frequently. But according to Sharon, the data cited by Roland is evidence that unemployment levels are normal right now. Sharon’s argument does not rely on choice (A), so eliminate this one.

Quote:
(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population

Choice (B) gets to the heart of Sharon’s assumption. If unemployment is evenly distributed across the population as opposed to being concentrated in certain states, cities and industries, then we’ll have an easier time agreeing with Sharon. If (B) is true, then any person who knows approximately 50 workers -- anywhere in the country -- is likely to know at least one unemployed worker, even if unemployment levels are moderate.

If (B) were NOT true and unemployment levels were moderate, then we would expect people in the geographically isolated segments to know several unemployed workers. In that case, most people in other parts of the country would NOT likely know at least one unemployed worker. If (B) were not true, then Roland’s evidence would be "alarming", and Sharon’s argument would fall apart.

Let’s keep choice (B) for now and try to eliminate the rest.

Quote:
(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population

Choice (C) could certainly weaken Roland’s argument (by suggesting that the evidence is normal, not alarming). But does Sharon’s argument rely on this assumption? What if unemployment levels are sometimes LESS than moderate? In that case, there would certainly be times when the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is NOT higher than 90% of the population.

Regardless, we are only interested in the fact that that 90 percent NOW report that they know someone who is unemployed. According to Sharon, this is no cause for alarm. Sharon’s argument would be the same regardless of whether (C) is true, so we can eliminate this one.

Quote:
(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents

Sharon’s argument doesn’t depend on whether Roland is honest. There would be no reason for continuing to this conversation if Roland were rattling off fake news he saw on Facebook, but Sharon’s logical connection wouldn’t be affected.

Sharon’s argument is basically, “Even if your evidence is true, there is no cause for alarm.” If the evidence is false, Roland might be a liar, but Sharon’s logic remains sound.

(D) isn't necessary, so we can eliminate it.

Quote:
(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics

Choice (E) very well may be true, but it tells us nothing that would affect the logical argument Sharon is making. She says we shouldn’t be alarmed because normal unemployment rates explain the seemingly abnormal rates of knowing an unemployed person. Fear of losing one's job is completely irrelevant to her argument.

So (E) is out, and (B) is our answer.
_________________

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

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

YouTube LIVE verbal webinars
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

Need an expert reply?
Hit the request verbal experts' reply button -- and please be specific about your question. Feel free to tag @GMATNinja 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

Most Helpful Community Reply
GMAT Club Legend
GMAT Club Legend
avatar
Joined: 15 Dec 2003
Posts: 4164
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Sep 2004, 18:12
69
15
B it is
A) This is not an assumption and will not affect the argument/conclusion given.
B) negate this one and you get:
unemployment is normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population
What is the implication of the above? If unemployment is concentrated in certain areas, how can we say that if someone who knows 50 persons will very likely know more than 1 person who is unemployed?
Let's take a simple number example. Country A has two cities: X and Y
City X: population = 100 --> 10 are unemployed
City Y: population = 100 --> 0 are unemployed
Total unemployment rate for country A: 10/200 = 5% --> as claimed by Sharon
As you can see in my example, unemployment is concentrated in a geographical location: city X
Hence, if that someone who Sharon is talking about lives in city Y, is it right to say that that person is likely to know more than one person who is unemployed? No, because that person lives in a city where there is no unemployment whatsoever.
Conclusion: We need to assume that unemployment is not isolated in geographically isolated segments of the population. If not, the argument falls apart.
_________________

Best Regards,

Paul

General Discussion
Manager
Manager
avatar
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 121
Location: US
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Sep 2004, 15:12
1
A.

I am getting this by process of elimination.

(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population -- Geographical isolation is not discussed in the argument.

(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population -- General statement

(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents
-- This is not the assumption

(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics -- General statement
Magoosh GMAT Instructor
User avatar
G
Joined: 28 Dec 2011
Posts: 4488
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 21 Dec 2004, 21:48
3
saurya_s wrote:
Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.

Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.

Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that


(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded

(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population

(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population

(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents

(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics



Roland is concerned --- 90% of people in the country know someone who is unemployed, and Roland apparently takes this as evidence that unemployment is high. This is a somewhat bogus argument. Sharon raises what is at root a very sensible objection --- because 90% know someone who is unemployed does not necessarily mean the unemployment rate is high. I'm going to guess that the vast majority of the population, almost everyone, personally knows someone over the age of 80 --- this doesn't mean that the majority of the population is over 80, but just that there are enough 80+ year olds distributed in the population densely enough that virtually everyone knows at least one person like this.

Sharon's argument is essentially a probabilistic argument --- if every person knows 50 people, then if 5% = 0.05 = 1/20 of all people are unemployed, then there's a very high chance that of the 50 random folks one person knows, at least one of them is unemployed. One subtle thing about this argument --- this argument works well if 1/20 is a true probability, that is, if we can pick essentially any group of fifty people, and the probability that any one person is unemployed is 1/20, and this probability is more or less constant as we look at different groups of 50. If the probability is not fixed --- if it's higher in some places and lower in other places --- then that changes the nature of the argument.

Suppose, for simplicity, the entire country consists of just ten cities, with small and equal populations. Suppose people know each other well within each city, but essentially no one from one city knows any one from any other city. (This is a highly unrealistic scenario, just to demonstrate the logic.)
SCENARIO #1: 5% of the people in each of the cities are unemployed --- then, most people in each city would know someone unemployed. Because there's an even distribution, about 90% or more of the population would know someone unemployed, even though only 5% of the population is unemployed. This assumes more or less even distribution of the unemployed. This is consistent with Sharon's argument.
SCENARIO #2: Now, consider an extreme of population concentration --- 50% of the people in City #1 are unemployed, and everyone in the other nine cities are fully employed. Here, everyone in City #1 would know someone unemployed, but City #1 is only 10% of the population. Assume the folks in different cities don't know each other, so no one else know the unemployed in City #1. Thus, 5% of the population is unemployed, and only 10% of the population knows someone unemployed.
In other words, if the unemployed are more-or-less evenly distributed in the population, that is, if we could go anywhere, any region or any subgroup of the population, and the probability that any single person is unemployed is about 5%, then we could have only 5% unemployment but a very high percentages, maybe 90%, who know someone who is unemployed: again, this is essentially Sharon's argument. BUT, if the unemployed are not even distributed, and are instead concentrated geographically in particular places, then Sharon's argument would no longer be valid.

That's why (B) is an excellent answer, the best answer for this question.

Does this make sense?
Mike :-)
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 25 Nov 2004
Posts: 1428
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 12 Jun 2006, 09:28
2
1
should be B.

to know the unemplyoment of 5% by 90%, the unemplyoed people should be disperse all over the countr/nation/state/ or whatewver.
SVP
SVP
avatar
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 1661
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jun 2006, 02:23
2
1
Will go with B.
Roland argues that 90% of people report that they know somebody unemployed. Whereas Sharon argues that the unemployment rate is only 5%. Hence if a person know 50 other persons..... one of them could be unemployed.
Now she is assumping that unemployement is not present in specific areas and is spread out to different geographical regions such that people are acquainted with different class of people.
VP
VP
User avatar
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 1204
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jun 2006, 15:33
:?: Still not sure what the core point is? Can someone elaborate?
Director
Director
avatar
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 914
Location: France
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 13 Jun 2006, 15:37
4
haas_mba07 wrote:
:?: Still not sure what the core point is? Can someone elaborate?


Roland is freakin out that 90% of the people in Xanadu know someone in that country who is unemployed.

Sharon is asking Roland to chill out because that stat presented by Roland means that normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So, if a resident of Xanadu knows 20 people, 1 of them will most likely be unemployed.

Now this is only possible if the unemployed people are scattered evenly across the country.

Thats what I made out of it :)
_________________

I believe its yogurt!

GMAT Tutor
avatar
S
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 1322
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2009, 05:36
7
nitindas wrote:
Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.
Sharon: But a normal,moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent,with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed.So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers,1 or more will very likely to be unemployed.

Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that
1. normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded.
2. unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of population.
3. the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population.
4. Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents
5. knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of loosing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics


It should be B. Imagine you have the following situation:

a town of 50,000 has 100% unemployment, and no one in this town speaks to anyone else in the country
the other 950,000 people in the country, or 95% of the population, all have jobs

Then only 5% of your population would know anyone who was unemployed - the 5% in the isolated town full of unemployed people. Sharon's argument assumes that unemployment is spread fairly equally across the population.
_________________

GMAT Tutor in Toronto

If you are looking for online GMAT math tutoring, or if you are interested in buying my advanced Quant books and problem sets, please contact me at ianstewartgmat at gmail.com

Manager
Manager
User avatar
Joined: 10 Jan 2009
Posts: 101
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 15 Mar 2009, 05:55
1
Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.

Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely to be unemployed.

Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that

Explanation:
------------------------
1.) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded. ---> Irrelevant.

2.) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of population. ---> When Sharon puts her point, she’s actually trying to say that if you ask any person (anywhere), he/she must be knowing someone (5% of acquaintances) who’s unemployed. This is based on the assumption stated in this option.

Had that not been the case, the argument would have fallen apart. If unemployed people are concentrated in specific regions, then only the residents of that region will be aware of the unemployed people.

3.) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population.
---> She is nowhere trying to assume this.

4.) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents ---> This option states that Roland is actually distorting the fact (though not consciously) but we cannot conclude this from their conversation. In fact, Sharon is not disagreeing with Roland’s stats. Anyways, this is not the assumption she relies on.

5.) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of loosing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics ---> Irrelevant.
------------------------

I too go for option 2.


Regards,
Technext
_________________

+++ Believe me, it doesn't take much of an effort to underline SC questions. Just try it out. +++
+++ Please tell me why other options are wrong. +++

~~~ The only way to get smarter is to play a smarter opponent. ~~~

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 24 Mar 2013
Posts: 4
OG 12: Q-71  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Sep 2013, 17:30
4
Hi,

Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.
Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with one out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, one or more will very likely be unemployed.

Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that
(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded
(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population
(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90 percent of
the population
(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents
(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does
knowledge of unemployment statistics


Explanation: Roland: It is a fact that- 90% of people of the country know someone who is unemployed.
Sharon: contradicts Roland's statement and says that average level of the unemployment of the country is 5%, with 1/20 is unemployed.
Conclusion of Sharon: so if a person knows 50 workers then at least one will be unemployed.

Assumption: More known people --> More number of unemployed people

A. OFS- we are not stated about the increase or decrease of unemployment.
B. Unemployment is for the country population, not just about the geographically isolated segments of the population- correct
C. always hight- extreme words- wrong
D. We are ask about Sharon's conclusion not of Roland's statement.
E. OFS

B: New Information, support the conclusion
But I am not understanding how to negate it. Means if i negate it like this: unemployment is normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population,
then how can we connect it with conclusion?

Regards,
Mugdha.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 26 Apr 2013
Posts: 49
Location: United States
Concentration: Marketing, Nonprofit
GPA: 3.5
WE: Marketing (Telecommunications)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: OG 12: Q-71  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 22 Sep 2013, 21:37
6
PiyuMu wrote:
Hi,

Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.
Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with one out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, one or more will very likely be unemployed.

Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that
(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded
(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population
(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90 percent of
the population
(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents
(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does
knowledge of unemployment statistics


Explanation: Roland: It is a fact that- 90% of people of the country know someone who is unemployed.
Sharon: contradicts Roland's statement and says that average level of the unemployment of the country is 5%, with 1/20 is unemployed.
Conclusion of Sharon: so if a person knows 50 workers then at least one will be unemployed.

Assumption: More known people --> More number of unemployed people

A. OFS- we are not stated about the increase or decrease of unemployment.
B. Unemployment is for the country population, not just about the geographically isolated segments of the population- correct
C. always hight- extreme words- wrong
D. We are ask about Sharon's conclusion not of Roland's statement.
E. OFS

B: New Information, support the conclusion
But I am not understanding how to negate it. Means if i negate it like this: unemployment is normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population,
then how can we connect it with conclusion?

Regards,
Mugdha.


Hi Mate,

In assumption questions negation technique is very useful and if you want to succeed in the assumption questions you should learn the assumption very well.
This is how the negation technique works.
All people will be going to football match……Negate it….you will get….Not all people will be going to football match. Now here not all means not all…there is a difference between not all and none.
Suppose there are 100 people then not all mean not all the 100 or may be 99 may be 98 or 95 or 10 but not all 100….but none means definitely 0.

So in the argument above as B is the correct answer. What does B says:
unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population
If you negate this you will get….unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population…..
now what does this negation means. If all the unemployed people are concentrated in one town or one patch of the area then sharon's argument will shatter. How? Well this is how….If all the unemployed people are concentrated only in city A and in city B there are No unemployed people then in city B if a person knows approximately 50 workers, one or more will not very likely be unemployed. So people in city A will know someone one or more people who are unemployed but in city B it won't be true. So sharon is assuming that people are distributed randomly and are not concentrated in one area.

Let me know if this makes sense.
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 24 Jun 2012
Posts: 10
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Aug 2015, 03:53
1
Here as per Sharon's argument.

She says that since the country's unemployment rate is at 5 percent, any person in the country who knows at least 50 other people. will know at least some unemployed person - Meaning that there is no way that all these 50 people are employed. And it assumes that this rule applies equally for the whole country.

But maybe one part of the country has a very high unemployment rate and the other part doesn't have any unemployment at all. If all the people a person knows are from the region that is doing well then there is a possibility that all the 50 are employed.

Option B says this. The argument assumes that the unemployement rate is equal for everyone and it is not concentrated in certain regions and not in others.
Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
Joined: 15 Oct 2015
Posts: 319
Concentration: Finance, Strategy
GPA: 3.93
WE: Account Management (Education)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Apr 2016, 08:08
3
GMAT is about pattern recognition.
The argument relies on statistics presented by two opponents.
Roland said something is Alarming.
Sharon's argument is: Hei Roland that's not really alarming.
Both guys based their opinions on statistical facts.

Whenever you see arguments based on statistics facts, as u already know, the validity of the conclusion is weakened if it is shown that the statistics is spurious or dubious.
Lack of Structural Stability of data or statistics makes a statistical result unreliable. I.e if the average doesn't closely show what's happening in MOST data points, the result is unreliable. In another language, a data that skews badly off its mean will make the mean result unreliable. e.g if the average of a set of numbers is 5, that average will be more reliable if the numbers are (3, 4, 5, 6, 7) or (4,4,5,6,6) than if the numbers are (0, 0, 0, 12, 13) or (1, 1, 2, 10, 11).
each has average of 5.

Assume the numbers above represent unemployment rates in 5 cities)
In the two later sets the high or alarming numbers are concentrated at some cities.
Even though all sets show that the national unemployment rate is 5 which is Normal, It is alarming in some places.

Some macroeconomic indicators rely on arthmetic average.
But the trouble with arithmetic averages is already known.
It doesn't show you what's happening in the whole country.

Option B therefore defends Sharon's point from a most potent weakener: unreliable statistics, Abnormally distributed data. etc


Always bear in mind that CR questions involving data or statistics will test simple knowledge of validity of statistics anytime.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 03 Apr 2016
Posts: 93
Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Leadership
Schools: ISB '19, IIMB EPGP"20
GMAT 1: 580 Q43 V27
GMAT 2: 650 Q32 V48
GRE 1: Q160 V151
GPA: 3.99
WE: Design (Consulting)
GMAT ToolKit User Reviews Badge
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Sep 2016, 06:28
Why isn't option A right. Isn't Sharon assuming that Option A (normal levels of unemployment are rarely raised).

Also, I didn't get the relation between one in 20 and one in 50 people. How are these two related? Though It is slightly clearer on how Sharon assuming option B to make that statement, Option A could also be true.

please explain
Retired Moderator
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 2946
Location: Germany
Schools: German MBA
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Sep 2016, 11:14
4
1
balaji4799 wrote:
Why isn't option A right. Isn't Sharon assuming that Option A (normal levels of unemployment are rarely raised).

Also, I didn't get the relation between one in 20 and one in 50 people. How are these two related? Though It is slightly clearer on how Sharon assuming option B to make that statement, Option A could also be true.

please explain


I found the following excerpt while going through my preparation notes:

correct B: negate this one and you get:
unemployment is normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population
What is the implication of the above? If unemployment is concentrated in certain areas, how can we say that if someone who knows 50 persons will very likely know more than 1 person who is unemployed?
Let's take a simple number example. Country A has two cities: X and Y
City X: population = 100 --> 10 are unemployed
City Y: population = 100 --> 0 are unemployed
Total unemployment rate for country A: 10/200 = 5% --> as claimed by Sharon
As you can see in my example, unemployment is concentrated in a geographical location: city X
Hence, if that someone who Sharon is talking about lives in city Y, is it right to say that that person is likely to know more than one person who is unemployed? No, because that person lives in a city where there is no unemployment whatsoever.
Conclusion: We need to assume that unemployment is not isolated in geographically isolated segments of the population. If not, the argument falls apart.


As for A: Sharon just states the normal level of unemployment. There is nothing in her statement that indicates that she assumes that the normal levels are exceeded (or they don't).
Director
Director
User avatar
G
Joined: 04 Sep 2015
Posts: 523
Location: India
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
Premium Member Reviews Badge CAT Tests
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 09 Jan 2017, 13:14
1
Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.

Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with one out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, one or more will very likely be unemployed.

Sharon’s argument relies on the assumption that

(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded
THis answer choice strengthens the claim by sharon,but the claim is not based on this fact.Also even if the unemployment level are not exceeded then the claim will still be valid.
(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population
This is the correct answer choice since if the unemployment population was concentrated in one region then the correct slection of the sample space of the sample data will never be accurate.The correctness of the claim can only be measured if the unemplyed people are equally distributed.
(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90 percent of the population
The choice is incorrect first because it uses a very stong work 'always' which can be avoided in such questions and second even if the 90 is not exceeded the calim will still be valid at 90%.
(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents
no such indication ,also the data given by roland is appropriate
(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one’s job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics
out of scope.
Manager
Manager
User avatar
S
Status: Aiming MBA!!
Joined: 19 Aug 2017
Posts: 112
Location: India
GMAT 1: 620 Q49 V25
GPA: 3.75
WE: Web Development (Consulting)
Reviews Badge
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Aug 2017, 09:09
Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this country now report that they know someone who is unemployed.

Sharon: But a normal, moderate level of unemployment is 5 percent, with 1 out of 20 workers unemployed. So at any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.

Sharon's argument relies on the assumption that

(A) normal levels of unemployment are rarely exceeded
(B) unemployment is not normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population
(C) the number of people who each know someone who is unemployed is always higher than 90% of the population
(D) Roland is not consciously distorting the statistics he presents
(E) knowledge that a personal acquaintance is unemployed generates more fear of losing one's job than does knowledge of unemployment statistics

My take -

First lets identify the conclusion for this question. Question asks to find the assumption of Sharon's argument.

Conclusion - At any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, 1 or more will very likely be unemployed.
or At any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, at least one will very likely be unemployed.

Any of the options which support the negation of the above argument, that is will actually break the above argument. Will be the answer.
Negation of Conclusion - At any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, none will very likely be unemployed.

(B) Negated - unemployment is normally concentrated in geographically isolated segments of the population.
It supports the negation of conclusion above. At any given time if a person knows approximately 50 workers, none will very likely be unemployed. Because all the unemployed people are normally concentrated on a geographically isolated segments of the population. So, no one knows of these geographically isolated unemployed people. Thus, B is the correct answer.

The image attached clears the option B in more detail. Please let me know, if someone has still any doubt on this question.
Attachments

CR-Roland-Sharon.PNG
CR-Roland-Sharon.PNG [ 37.64 KiB | Viewed 2649 times ]

Intern
Intern
avatar
B
Joined: 22 Jul 2017
Posts: 5
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou  [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 31 Oct 2017, 04:37
What should be the approach to the question?
the options are really ambiguous for me to understand.
Please explain in detail.
GMAT Club Bot
Re: Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou &nbs [#permalink] 31 Oct 2017, 04:37

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 28 posts ] 

Display posts from previous: Sort by

Roland: The alarming fact is that 90 percent of the people in this cou

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


Copyright

GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.