The cost of manufacturing automobiles is considerably greater in Ester

For me, the best answer is E:

You need to find another reason for the decrease by 30% of the country's workers.

A) Many Esterian automobile manufacturers operate factories outside Esteria. = it is not time related. The companies could have started to produced outside the country 50 years ago.

B) The number of automobile workers in Burdistan has not increased during the same period. = This is the answer to the question "on what the argument depends?"

C) Because vehicles manufactured in Esteria have a reputation for high quality, many Esterian consumers have continued to purchase domestically manufactured vehicles since the tax was abolished. = And therefore is this a reason why the number of workers decreased by 30%? And "many" is not clear: could be 60%, 70%...;

D) Esterian automobile manufacturers have lowered the price of their automobiles so as to remain competitive with the manufacturers in Burdistan. = Close, but not good; the decrease in price might not have led to a decrease in the number of workers

E) Recent innovations in automated automobile-manufacturing technology have approximately halved the number of worker-hours required to produce most automobiles. = Correct, this weaken the argument, stating that the decrease in the number of workers is due to a new innovations not to a decrease in sales. It also justify the decrease of 30% and is time related with the word "recent".

Answer E for me!

Have an OA?

A) Many Esterian automobile manufacturers operate factories outside Esteria.---- Many is not clear in this answer. Even though 8 companies out of 10 are outside Esteria. What if the 2 companies account for most of the production of cars. (Most number of employees in those companies) So a reduction in employees will decrease the number of vehicles manufactured in Esteria. Does not Weaken.

B) The number of automobile workers in Burdistan has not increased during the same period.--- What happens in Burdistan is none of our business. This does not weaken the argument.

C) Because vehicles manufactured in Esteria have a reputation for high quality, many Esterian consumers have continued to purchase domestically manufactured vehicles since the tax was abolished.---- Incorrect, because this is just weaken the fact the cars sold have decreased. But does not tell us anything about cars made.

D) Esterian automobile manufacturers have lowered the price of their automobiles so as to remain competitive with the manufacturers in Burdistan.--- Again this is none of our business. It does not matter if they have lowered the price, that definitely does not give us any info on the relation of workers to cars made and sold.

E) Recent innovations in automated automobile-manufacturing technology have approximately halved the number of worker-hours required to produce most automobiles.---- This weakens the argument. The new technology reduces the number of workers but still produces THE MOST automobiles. CORRECT

I will go by E. I agree to the explanation given by the most of you.

Only answer E provides evidence which weaken the argument by giving alternative evidence (innovation in automated automobile manufacturing technology) because of which number of workers decreased by 30% in the Esterian automobile factories.

My answer is E.

Conclusion: The number of vehicles manufactured and sold in Esteria must have decreased in the last five years because of 30% decrease in number of workers.

Assumption: Dropping of taxes led to higher selling of Burdistan's manufactured vehicles in Esteria and that effected Esterian manufacturing industry production and consequently layoff of workers.

Best way to weaken an argument is to show alternative cause for the effect.

Only E shows the alternative cause.

yes, manhattan questions give options that sound plausible, but only one option fits the scope. E is the answer, and E is a common pattern, test takers should learn this.

I was looking for an option that would say that the manufacturing in Esteria was ineffective, and there were to many workers.
But option E is good as well (do not like the word "most" in it though).
D might sound goodm but to choose it is to ovethink

Thanks for sharing! Seems like a very good way to solve this particular problem!

Reduction of workers is not the reason why -> No of vehicles manufactured and sold in Esteria must have decreased in the last five years.

Even when the Esterian government had removed the taxes kept on the automobiles manufactured in Burdistan.

A) Many Esterian automobile manufacturers operate factories outside Esteria.
Irrelevant -No relationship is present as such.

B) The number of automobile workers in Burdistan has not increased during the same period.
We are talking about Esterian companies, Out

C) Because vehicles manufactured in Esteria have a reputation for high quality, many Esterian consumers have continued to purchase domestically manufactured vehicles since the tax was abolished.
This is saying the opposite of the conclusion, sales should have increased - Out

D) Esterian automobile manufacturers have lowered the price of their automobiles so as to remain competitive with the manufacturers in Burdistan.
Strengthen the argument, Doesnt discuss about decrease of the sale - Out

E) Recent innovations in automated automobile-manufacturing technology have approximately halved the number of worker-hours required to produce most automobiles.
Recent innovations have reduced the worker-hours required to produce most automobiles. Yes this can be the other reason for the loss.

Answer E

VeritasKarishma , i have a doubt with option E- It says recent innovation , but the question talks about situation for 5 years. How can E be the answer.
Am i missing something here?

VeritasKarishma GMATNinja

The numbers being compared are: 5 yrs ago vs today - we see that there is a 30% decrease.
Recent innovation can be in the last 2 yrs, last year or even last 2 months but it doesn't matter. It explains the decline in the workforce today. When did this decline actually take place and at what rate is irrelevant.

Just to clarify A - we are told that the number of workers decreased, so it doesn't matter where the factories are located. A tries to construe the facts

OE:


The passage takes the 30% decrease in the number of workers employed in Esterian automobile factories as evidence that the actual number of vehicles manufactured in those factories has fallen. Any statement that weakens or severs the connection between those two ideas will weaken the argument.

(A)
The argument deals only with automobiles manufactured inside Esteria. Therefore, factories located outside Esteria are irrelevant, even if those factories are owned by Esterian companies.

(B)
The number of automobile workers in Burdistan is irrelevant to the relationship between Esterian automobile workers and Esterian domestic automobile production. We absolutely cannot assume any type of relationship between the numbers of auto workers in the two countries, since the passage says nothing about auto workers in Burdistan.

(C)
Even if many Esterians have continued to purchase domestically manufactured automobiles, this statement does nothing to contradict the conclusion of the passage. In particular, many other Esterians may have chosen not to purchase domestically manufactured vehicles because of the repealed tax.

(D)
The price of Esterian automobiles is not directly related to the correlation between the number of Esterian automobile workers and Esterian domestic automobile production. Therefore, this statement is irrelevant.

(E) Correct
If this statement is true, then Esterian factories could maintain their pre-innovation production levels even with a 50% decrease in the number of workers. Therefore, if the decrease in the number of workers has only been 30%, it is quite possible that Esteria’s domestic manufacturing of automobiles has remained constant or even increased. In any case, this statement destroys the connection made in the passage between the decrease in the number of workers and a hypothesized decrease in automobile production.

Hi Experts,

I have a question regarding the correct answer. Answer choice E only seems to weaken part of the conclusion. Answer E shows that though there is a decrease in the number of employees, these employees are more efficient than they used to be, thus allowing similar production of cars. Answer choice E does not address the number of cars sold though. Since we are told that the selling price for cars manufactured in Burdistan sold in Eesterian has decreased, because the tax went away, couldn't answer choice C satisfy part of the conclusion as well?

Thanks in advance!