The anticipated retirement of tens of thousands of baby boomers will

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

This argument concludes that the city should convene a conference of relevant parties to create opportunities for out of work young people. The argument's premise is that the retirement of the baby boomers will create shortages. The argument assumes the efficacy of its conclusion -- in other words, that the conference will actually be effective in creating job opportunities. Attacking an assumption is an effective way to weaken an argument.

(A) If anything, this choice strengthens the argument. If immigration does not provide a labor pool, it is more likely that a shortage will ensue.

(B) CORRECT. The argument assumes that it is feasible to affect employment patterns by government encouragement and/or action. If that assumption is denied, the conclusion is weakened, as the conference would be pointless.

(C) This choice makes an irrelevant distinction. It doesn’t matter if the best positions require skills, as long as the majority are available to the unskilled unemployed in question.

(D) Knowing that a small proportion of baby boomers will not retire on schedule does not significantly weaken the argument. The argument relies on general estimates, not on exact numbers.

(E) If anything, this choice strengthens the argument. If these people are unaware of these opportunities, it would be positive to convene to plan how to reach them.

Read the question stem then look at the answer choices only B and E weaken the conclusion. The conclusion is the city government should convene employers and educators to determine how best to create paths of upward mobility in these fields.
So if the ex efforts are not succesful any effort which will now be implemented will be unsuccesful.

The anticipated retirement of tens of thousands of baby boomers will create an unprecedented opportunity to move significant numbers of people into career-track jobs at family-supporting incomes. Major industries, from health care and construction to automotive repair, will soon face deep shortages of workers as a result of projected growth and boomer retirements. Fortunately, many of these jobs have relatively low barriers to entry and could be filled by out-of-work young people. To achieve this result, the city government should convene employers and educators to determine how best to create paths of upward mobility in these fields.

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

A. Immigration reform will limit the pool of available workers. ...Workforce not necessarily has to be insourced
B. Government efforts have been shown to affect employment trends only rarely...Could be possible but not conclusive
C. The best available positions require skills not possessed by the vast majority of the unemployed...No need for best available jobs.The bulk jobs can go to them
D. A small proportion of baby boomers will not retire as soon as is anticipated...Does not affect the city's plans
E. Many out-of-work young people are unaware of these looming employment opportunities...MOST LIKELY


IMO its E

The anticipated retirement of tens of thousands of baby boomers will create an unprecedented opportunity to move significant numbers of people into career-track jobs at family-supporting incomes. Major industries, from health care and construction to automotive repair, will soon face deep shortages of workers as a result of projected growth and boomer retirements. Fortunately, many of these jobs have relatively low barriers to entry and could be filled by out-of-work young people. To achieve this result, the city government should convene employers and educators to determine how best to create paths of upward mobility in these fields.

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

A) Immigration reform will limit the pool of available workers.

B) Government efforts have been shown to affect employment trends only rarely. This means any attempt by the government will fail , weakens the conclusion of the argument directly and effectively.

C) The best available positions require skills not possessed by the vast majority of the unemployed.

D) A small proportion of baby boomers will not retire as soon as is anticipated.

E) Many out-of-work young people are unaware of these looming employment opportunities.

Answer is B .

The anticipated retirement of tens of thousands of baby boomers will create an unprecedented opportunity to move significant numbers of people into career-track jobs at family-supporting incomes. Major industries, from health care and construction to automotive repair, will soon face deep shortages of workers as a result of projected growth and boomer retirements. Fortunately, many of these jobs have relatively low barriers to entry and could be filled by out-of-work young people. To achieve this result, the city government should convene employers and educators to determine how best to create paths of upward mobility in these fields.


retirement of boomers --> significant people into career-track jobs --> shortage of workers in major industries
low barriers in workers jobs in these industries --> filled by out-of-work young people
to fill these jobs by out-of-work young people --> city government should increase paths of upward mobility in these fields



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

A. Immigration reform will limit the pool of available workers.
this, if true, will strengthen the argument that the city government should increase paths of upward mobility in these fields


B. Government efforts have been shown to affect employment trends only rarely.
correct. if government efforts affect employment rarely, then the argument that the government city should do something will be weaken

C. The best available positions require skills not possessed by the vast majority of the unemployed.
not relevant


D. A small proportion of baby boomers will not retire as soon as is anticipated.
this, if true, will not significant weaken the premise that retirement of boomers will cause significant number of people more into career-track jobs

E. Many out-of-work young people are unaware of these looming employment opportunities.
this, if true, will strengthen the argument that the city government should increase paths of upward mobility in these fields

The argument concludes that the city should convene a conference of relevant parties to create opportunities for out of work young people.

1. Immigration reform will limit the pool of available workers. -
INCORRECT : THIS STRENGTHENS THE ARGUMENT BY SHOWING THERE WILL BE SHORTAGE OF AVAILABLE WORKERS

2. Government efforts have been shown to affect employment trends only rarely.
CORRECT : WEAKENS THE ARGUMENT BY SHOWING THAT EVEN WHEN THE CAUSE OCCURS (govt efforts) the EFFECT DOES NOT OCCUR

3. The best available positions require skills not possessed by the vast majority of the unemployed.
INCORRECT : THIS IS CLEARLY OUT OF SCOPE, ARGUMENT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT 'BEST AVAILABLE POSITIONS' but POSITIONS IN GENERAL

4. A small proportion of baby boomers will not retire as soon as is anticipated.
INCORRECT : THIS ACTUALLY STRENGTHENS THE ARGUMENT BY INFERRING THAT THERE MIGHT NOT B A 'DEEP SHORTAGE OF WORKERS'

5. Many out-of-work young people are unaware of these looming employment opportunities.
INCORRECT : THIS AGAIN STRENGTHENS THE ARGUMENT

totally wrong opinion!!! you think this question sucks only becoz you picked the wrong answer choice, GMAT doesnt test your knowledge, it is a test to see if you are qualified as a business manager and make the right decision / choice, many people in reality are managers, but some of them are not qualified; back to this question, if you can understand why ACDE are 100% wrong, then the only thing you need to do is pick B and move on, that is all you need to do, but why did you pick E ? E is a 100% and clear strengthener, so maybe you should pay attention to your Critical reasoning skills, at least in a GMAT way.

IMO A is a strengthener, if the goal stated in the Q was to reduce unemployment (Labour > Available jobs)
So if Labour reduces, Jobs and Labour may come to the equilibrium or close to the =.

However, and this is my problem, the Q states the goal is to refill the available positions once mass retirement happens. The Q does not state any info if the post boomers population that is ready for jobs is enough to refill all the jobs. Add to that immigration cuts, how is that a strengthener? (New situation can be: Jobs > Labour)
Isn't it then a weakener?

Bunuel GMATNinja manhattangmat Some help please.

Contextual Example from the real world:
China is the largest manufacturer in the world responsible for a lot of production and jobs. However, the low population of the new generation due to the one-child policy and the mass of old people retiring means they will possibly face a similar situation.
Now if they add immigration cuts, how can they aim to achieve the refill of all the jobs that the country has?

Appreciate the responses and apologies for the long question in an old thread.

I am not convinced by the argument that E is a strengthener.

"To achieve this result, the city government should convene employers and educators to determine how best to create paths of upward mobility in these fields."

Unambiguously, the author's goal for the city government would be the facilitation of young people into the upwardly mobile fields. E is suggesting that the wrong people are meeting, employers and educators aren't experts on getting young people informed. From E one can reason: To achieve the result, we don't need employers and educators to meet, instead the government should mobilize on an information campaign to inform the youth.

Whereas while C perhaps also is a weakener it's not a very compelling one. Something generally doesn't work so it won't work this time? This is bringing in outside knowledge but if I think about most employment policy it is about resetting people with established blue collar jobs into white collar fields and while that doesn't work it proves the point that this plan isn't the same as other plans. And whose government plans, federal government vs local government (I also didn't love employment trends, because would the impact show up on a trend). Also what's rarely 5%? 20%? I would feel better with a stronger modifier than rarely.

So what weakens more:
Generally government (which may be similar to the city) efforts (which may be similar to these efforts) rarely impact trends (in a potentially similar circumstance).
Or the plan called for the wrong method to achieve the desired result.

I can be probably convinced either way - and I have definitely overthought an unofficial question - but based on advice to focus on specific language of the text (employers and educators), and the fact that GMAT doesn't like x didn't work therefore related y won't work.

I guess if anyone has advice on where I went wrong or how to improve my process I would appreciate it.