Last visit was: 18 May 2024, 00:46 It is currently 18 May 2024, 00:46
Toolkit
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

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.

# The average salary of the legally employed population in the country

SORT BY:
Tags:
Show Tags
Hide Tags
Manager
Joined: 26 Jul 2018
Status:Risk or die!
Posts: 126
Own Kudos [?]: 29 [19]
Given Kudos: 243
Location: India
GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V32
WE:Consulting (Investment Banking)
Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2015
Posts: 71
Own Kudos [?]: 83 [2]
Given Kudos: 79
Location: Spain
Concentration: Strategy, Entrepreneurship
GPA: 3.9
WE:Management Consulting (Consulting)
Intern
Joined: 09 Apr 2020
Posts: 3
Own Kudos [?]: 14 [0]
Given Kudos: 30
GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Posts: 4944
Own Kudos [?]: 7665 [1]
Given Kudos: 216
Location: India
Re: The average salary of the legally employed population in the country [#permalink]
1
Bookmarks
Top Contributor
akankshathareja wrote:
GMATNinja Could you please help me understand why A is not the right choice, and why E is?

As per the argument, "the manufacturing industry employs an increasing share of the employable population" - This means that manufacturing industry has been hiring the most, which is exactly what (A) states.

Also, (E) puts forth a very strong claim that the average salary would have been less than 43k per annum - It could be possible that if the growth in salaries in manufacturing industry were not that much, MANY other industries with small number of employees with high raises would have a generated an average of 43k. The argument mentions that the manufacturing industry had a big role to play for its share of hires. Nowhere in the passage is mentioned that other industries would not have been able to give big hikes (even if small in count).

Hi Akanksha

Let me try to address your query. Let us focus on the portion of the passage that you have highlighted: "the manufacturing industry employs an increasing share of the employable population".

Contrary to what you have stated, this does not have to mean that the manufacturing industry has been hiring the most. This only means that the proportion of population employed in manufacturing today is more than it was five years ago. It is possible that some other industry has also increased its share, and that too more than manufacturing. The passage does not rule this out. Additionally, option (A) does not state that manufacturing has been hiring the most, either. It only states that manufacturing employs more people than any other industry, for which there is no basis in the passage. Hence option (A) is incorrect.

The passage does not state that manufacturing has had "a big role" to play in the salary increase - it only states that it has had a part to play ("This increase is, at least in part, because of the manufacturing industry..."). We do not know to what extent this industry has influenced this increase in salary.

GMAT Club Legend
Joined: 03 Oct 2013
Affiliations: CrackVerbal
Posts: 4944
Own Kudos [?]: 7665 [1]
Given Kudos: 216
Location: India
The average salary of the legally employed population in the country [#permalink]
1
Kudos
Top Contributor
The average salary of the legally employed population in the country has gone up from USD 30,000 per annum to USD 43,000 per annum in the last five years. Even after accounting for inflation over these years, this rise is substantial. This increase is, at least in part, because of the manufacturing industry which employs an increasing share of the employable population.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage above?

Pre-thinking:

The average salary has increased over the last five years, and the manufacturing industry has contributed to this increase. Therefore, the average salary in the manufacturing industry has also increased. Additionally, more people are employed in manufacturing today than there were five years ago. With this in mind, let us examine the answer choices.

A. The manufacturing industry is the biggest employer in the country. We only know that the manufacturing industry employs more people today than it did five years ago. It is possible that some other industry employs a greater proportion of the legally employed population than manufacturing. This is not ruled out by the passage. Eliminate.

B. The legally employable population has increased in the last five years. The passage only gives us information about the proportion of population employed in manufacturing and nothing about the absolute number of people employed. Eliminate.

C. Industries other than manufacturing have not increased their employees salaries in the last five years. We know nothing about any other industries. Eliminate.

D. The average salary rise in industries other than manufacturing is lower than that in manufacturing. We do not know this. We know that manufacturing has played "a part" in the increase in average salaries. It is entirely possible that other industries have increased salaries more than manufacturing. Eliminate.

E. If it were not for the growth in the salaries in the manufacturing industry, the average salary would have been less than 43,000 per annum today. Correct answer. Since there has been an increase in salaries in manufacturing ("This increase is, at least in part, because of the manufacturing industry..."), an absence of this increase would mean average salaries would be lower than they are now.

Hope this helps.
Intern
Joined: 04 Apr 2020
Posts: 43
Own Kudos [?]: 12 [0]
Given Kudos: 14
Re: The average salary of the legally employed population in the country [#permalink]
I might be wrong, but I've read somewhere that if a stimuli mentions numbers, there is a high chance that the answer will contain numbers as well. Don't take my word for it though - just thought I should mention it.
GMAT Tutor
Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 4129
Own Kudos [?]: 9296 [2]
Given Kudos: 91
Q51  V47
Re: The average salary of the legally employed population in the country [#permalink]
2
Kudos
CrackVerbalGMAT wrote:
E. If it were not for the growth in the salaries in the manufacturing industry, the average salary would have been less than 43,000 per annum today. Correct answer. Since there has been an increase in salaries in manufacturing ("This increase is, at least in part, because of the manufacturing industry..."), an absence of this increase would mean average salaries would be lower than they are now.

But that's not what the question says. The question says the average salary in the country has increased, and it says that the proportion of people employed in manufacturing has increased. It doesn't say that any individual salary has increased at all, and nowhere says that manufacturing job salaries increased. It might just be that, say, every other job pays \$30,000 per year, and manufacturing jobs pay \$43,000 per year. Maybe no one was employed in manufacturing five years ago, and now everyone is. There's no need for any salaries to change at all.

So when I read answer E: "If it were not for the growth in the salaries in the manufacturing industry, the average salary would have been less than 43,000 per annum today", I'm led to ask "what growth in those salaries?" The stem doesn't mention anywhere that manufacturing salaries grew. Naturally, if manufacturing salaries did increase over the last five years, then if you take that increase away, and leave everything else unchanged, the average goes down. But that would be true no matter what sector you were talking about -- if you make some numbers in your set smaller, you decrease the average. The answer would be just as valid an inference if it talked about retail job salaries, assuming those increased. So if the stem did mention increased salaries in manufacturing, E would be true, but for no other reason than that's how math works; none of the information in the stem would be important. But as written, I don't see how E is a correct inference when it seems to be asking us to infer that a salary increase occurred that we have no reason to believe actually did occur.
Senior Manager
Joined: 12 Jan 2019
Posts: 404
Own Kudos [?]: 216 [0]
Given Kudos: 372
Location: India
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V34
Re: The average salary of the legally employed population in the country [#permalink]
thinkvision wrote:
The average salary of the legally employed population in the country has gone up from USD 30,000 per annum to USD 43,000 per annum in the last five years. Even after accounting for inflation over these years, this rise is substantial. This increase is, at least in part, because of the manufacturing industry which employs an increasing share of the employable population.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage above?

A. The manufacturing industry is the biggest employer in the country.
B. The legally employable population has increased in the last five years.
C. Industries other than manufacturing have not increased their employees salaries in the last five years.
D. The average salary rise in industries other than manufacturing is lower than that in manufacturing.
E. If it were not for the growth in the salaries in the manufacturing industry, the average salary would have been less than 43,000 per annum today.

But hey,
the author doesn't say anything about increased avg salary in the manufacturing industry. It says it is because of the increased share of the employable population.

Consider, the previously avg salary in the manufacturing industry was 60,000. As avg salary for all was 30,000, there must be some employees earning less than 30,000. Now, the manufacturing industry hires some of these low-earning employees at 40,000, which is still much lower than the manufacturing industry's average. This is what happens in this case:
1) Manufacturing industry now employs an increased share of the employable population. And overall average salary increases. (Satisfies the question's condition)
2) Average salary of the manufacturing industry goes down. (Contradicts the option E)

E should be wrong
Intern
Joined: 02 Mar 2024
Posts: 10
Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]
Given Kudos: 22
Re: The average salary of the legally employed population in the country [#permalink]
IanStewart wrote:
CrackVerbalGMAT wrote:
E. If it were not for the growth in the salaries in the manufacturing industry, the average salary would have been less than 43,000 per annum today. Correct answer. Since there has been an increase in salaries in manufacturing ("This increase is, at least in part, because of the manufacturing industry..."), an absence of this increase would mean average salaries would be lower than they are now.

But that's not what the question says. The question says the average salary in the country has increased, and it says that the proportion of people employed in manufacturing has increased. It doesn't say that any individual salary has increased at all, and nowhere says that manufacturing job salaries increased. It might just be that, say, every other job pays \$30,000 per year, and manufacturing jobs pay \$43,000 per year. Maybe no one was employed in manufacturing five years ago, and now everyone is. There's no need for any salaries to change at all.

So when I read answer E: "If it were not for the growth in the salaries in the manufacturing industry, the average salary would have been less than 43,000 per annum today", I'm led to ask "what growth in those salaries?" The stem doesn't mention anywhere that manufacturing salaries grew. Naturally, if manufacturing salaries did increase over the last five years, then if you take that increase away, and leave everything else unchanged, the average goes down. But that would be true no matter what sector you were talking about -- if you make some numbers in your set smaller, you decrease the average. The answer would be just as valid an inference if it talked about retail job salaries, assuming those increased. So if the stem did mention increased salaries in manufacturing, E would be true, but for no other reason than that's how math works; none of the information in the stem would be important. But as written, I don't see how E is a correct inference when it seems to be asking us to infer that a salary increase occurred that we have no reason to believe actually did occur.

­
True, Any option including E is incorrect.
If it were not for the growth in the salaries in the manufacturing industry, the average salary would have been less, equal or more than 43,000 per annum today. It totally depends on average salary of employees in manufacturing and other industries.

Crackverbal
Director
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 660
Own Kudos [?]: 39 [0]
Given Kudos: 24
Re: The average salary of the legally employed population in the country [#permalink]
Understanding the argument - ­
The average salary of the legally employed population in the country has gone up from USD 30,000 per annum to USD 43,000 per annum in the last five years. - Premise/Background info.
Even after accounting for inflation over these years, this rise is substantial. - Opinion.
This increase is, at least in part, because of the manufacturing industry which employs an increasing share of the employable population. - Supporting premise.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage above?

A. The manufacturing industry is the biggest employer in the country. - We don't know. "Might be true" category, which is wrong as we can't say with 100% confidence.

B. The legally employable population has increased in the last five years. - No mention in the passage.

C. Industries other than manufacturing have not increased their employees salaries in the last five years. - We don't know.

D. The average salary rise in industries other than manufacturing is lower than that in manufacturing. - The comparison between manufacturing and non-manufacturing is not mentioned. We can't deduce this from the average increase. Maybe there is an industry that provides five times the salary of the manufacturer, but the sample is too small.

E. If it were not for the growth in the salaries in the manufacturing industry, the average salary would have been less than 43,000 per annum today. - We can deduce this.
Re: The average salary of the legally employed population in the country [#permalink]
Moderators:
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
6929 posts
GMAT Club Verbal Expert
238 posts
CR Forum Moderator
832 posts