SudiptoGmat wrote:
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?
(A) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen when the minimum wage has risen.
(B) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant.
(C) Employers often hire extra help during holiday and warm weather seasons.
(D) The teenage unemployment rate rose more quickly in the 1970’s than it did in the 1960’s.
(E) The teenage unemployment rate has occasionally declined in the years since 1960.
Answer is not E but B. Let's discuss why not E. Let me know what is your logic.
Quote:
What i understand from the passage is that 'owners are not willing to pay government-mandated minimum-wage level to teenagers for extra help .[ Attention this is not regular work , author refers to extra work ]. The author concludes that if Congress institutes a subminimum wage, then unemployment rate which has been rising since 1960 will no longer increase.
Here assumption is that by institutionalizing a sub minimum wage for teenagers , unemployment rate will not increase.
We need to weaken this assumption .
Let us pre think on how to do weaken by considering some scenarios
a) Even after Institutionalizing a sub minimum wage for teenagers, if Unemployment rate does not decrease --- weakens
b) There may be another reason for the cause of Unemployment. --- weakens
Let us walk through the options B and C which provide us with similar kind of scenarios
Choice C : Employers often hire extra help during holiday and warm weather seasons. [This choice talks about extra help]
So this weakens the argument that even after Institutionalizing a sub minimum wage for teenagers, as employers hire for extra help only during holiday season, this doesn't reduce unemployment.
Choice B : Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant.
This argument is already given in the question that " teenage unemployment rate which has been rising since 1960" and the cause of this effect was wage was higher (remained constant)
I would have rather choosen B , if the statement given was as following
"Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen even after Institutionalizing a sub minimum wage for teenagers" .
(or)
In case of choice B should we assume that government will be increasing the minimum wage every year, and inspite of not increasing the minimum wage , still there is unemployment. Hence reckoned as a Weakaner.
Kindly help me on this question.
Thanks in advance
The argument tells you this:
Employers don't want to pay minimum-wages for "extra help" obtained from teenagers, say during Christmas when their own workforce is not sufficient.
So teenage unemployment is increasing i.e. % of people who want jobs and are looking for one but do not have yet.
Conclusion: Institute a sub-minimum wage so that teenage unemployment rate doesn't increase.
The thought probably is that if employers have to pay lower wages for extra help, they will continue to hire teenagers.
(B) Since 1960 the teenage unemployment rate has risen even when the minimum wage remained constant.
This option tells us that that even when minimum wage is constant, lower number of teenagers are being hired. Say, two years back, the minimum wage was $8/hr and teenage unemployment rate was 10%. Say, today also minimum wage is $8/hr but teenage unemployment rate is now 20%. What does this tell us? It says that there are other factors at play for the increase in unemployment rate. The wages may have nothing to do with rising unemployment rate. This weakens our conclusion and hence is the answer.
(C) Employers often hire extra help during holiday and warm weather seasons.
When the employers hire extra help is immaterial. Point is, they have been hiring lesser extra help. The argument links amount of extra help with minimum wages.