Teenagers are often priced out of the labor market by the government-m

Friends, I need help understanding the logic behind B being the right answer - The question is (and I'm going to focus more between options B and E):

Teenagers are often priced out of the labor market by the government-mandated minimum-wage level because employers cannot afford to pay that much for extra help. Therefore, if Congress institutes a subminimum wage, a new lower legal wage for teenagers, the teenage unemployment rate, which has been rising since 1960, will no longer increase.

Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?


(B) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant.
- Why is this considered to weaken the argument?
- The conclusion of the argument is - if the Congress decides to introduce on a subminimum wage - unemployment rate among teenagers will no longer increase (this does not mean decrease the unemployment rate, it can also suggest that the unemployment rate remains constant)
- What if the legal wage rose to such a level (and thereafter remained constant) that people dont see it fit for hiring teenagers for that wage?
- Say for example the minimum wage turned out to be $10 per hour. What if the employers now see that it is more profitable for the company to hire non teenagers for that money?
- This can explain why teenage unemployment rate increased even though the minimum wage has remained constant
- Therefore, this can advocate for a subminimum wage to be introduced.
- My way of thinking is - for this option to be a weakener, we need to prove that introducing a subminimum wage "might" not (instead of will not) necessarily prevent unemployment rate among teenagers from increasing

(E) The teenage unemployment rate has occasionally declined in the years since 1960.
- This does bring into question whether there can be other factors that can be explored for bringing down teenage unemployment rate
- But that's not what the argument is about. For this option to be a weakener, we need to prove that introducing a subminimum wage "might" not (instead of will not) necessarily prevent unemployment rate among teenagers from increasing
- This option does not point towards that direction. It says there can be other ways of bringing down teenage unemployment rate
- But between this and option B, only this option brings into question whether it is even required to introduce a subminimum wage

Thanks in advance for helping me here!

Debayan

Priced out: To exclude by means of a high price

Statement says Teenagers are kept out of market because of their " High Wages ". Therefore, author suggests that " if government institutes a subminimum wage (constant lower wage) " ----> Teenage unemployment rate would go down

Option (A) weakens the argument yet it doesn't weaken most since we are speaking about increase in wages instead of constant wages
Option (B) most weakens the argument by saying, even the constant wages couldn't save unemployment in Teenagers during 1960
Option (C) holiday and warm weather seasons are out of context
Option (D) comparison between 1960's and 1970's is out of context
Option (E) The unemployment rate among teenagers might have declined but how is it related to proposing/amending Wage level

Understanding the argument -
Teenagers are often priced out of the labor market - why? Because employers cannot afford to pay the government-mandated minimum wage.

So if we reduce the wage (improve the cause) - teenagers will not be priced out - more employers can afford them - and the unemployment rate will decrease.
To weaken the cause-and-effect relationship here. How - Find an alternate cause?

(A) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen when the minimum wage has risen. - strengthens the cause and effect.

(B) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant. - if wages remained constant, then per the above cause-and-effect relationship, the unemployment rate should have been constant, but it was not. This means there is something else, or the wages have nothing to do with the unemployment rates.

(C) Employers often hire extra help during holiday and warm weather seasons. - when they hire is out of scope.

(D) The teenage unemployment rate rose more quickly in the 1970's than it did in the 1960's. - we are looking to weaken the future projection. Distortion.

(E) The teenage unemployment rate has occasionally declined in the years since 1960. If they have sometimes declined, they may decline with a reduced rate. It neither strengthens nor weakens. Distortion.

Hi KarishmaB
What if that the minimum wage was too high for the companies to pay for even after several years ? By this time the number of teens can grow and since they are not employed, the unemployment rate increases. This actually does point to the fact that the minimum wage is the culprit and if sub-minimum wage comes in place, it can resolve the issue.
What do you think?
Thanks

GMATNinja can you please share your thoughts here.

Why is (A) incorrect?

There are two wages to be considered here - minimum wage (which does not apply to teenagers), and sub-minimum wage (which applied to teenagers).

If minimum wage increases, companies would hire teenagers (as minimum wages don't apply to them) at a wage lower than that of non-teenagers. So there wouldn't be a need to introduce a new sub-minimum wage.

Why does this not weaken the argument more than that of (B)?

The "subminimum" wage is only hypothetical and does not yet exist ("if Congress institutes a subminimum wage, a new lower legal wage for teenagers...").

The author argues that IF a subminimum wage for teens was created, THEN the teenage unemployment rate would no longer increase. But for now, there's only one single minimum wage that applies to everyone.

An increase in that single (or universal) minimum wage would, according to the author, only further price teens out of the labor market, so (A) is actually consistent with the author's argument.

I hope that helps!