It is currently 24 Nov 2017, 04:44

Close

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
Your Progress

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.

Close

Request Expert Reply

Confirm Cancel

Events & Promotions

Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  
Author Message
TAGS:

Hide Tags

3 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
B
Status: I don't stop when I'm Tired,I stop when I'm done
Joined: 11 May 2014
Posts: 564

Kudos [?]: 2943 [3], given: 220

Location: Bangladesh
Concentration: Finance, Leadership
GPA: 2.81
WE: Business Development (Real Estate)
The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jun 2016, 10:46
3
This post received
KUDOS
36
This post was
BOOKMARKED
00:00
A
B
C
D
E

Difficulty:

  45% (medium)

Question Stats:

67% (01:31) correct 33% (01:44) wrong based on 1377 sessions

HideShow timer Statistics

The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have college degrees, compared with those who do not have such degrees, doubled between 1980 and 1990. Some analysts have hypothesized that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation described above?


A) During the 1980s a growing percentage of college graduates, unable to find jobs requiring a college degree, took unskilled jobs.
B) The average age of all employees increased slightly during the 1980s.
C) The unemployment rate changed very little throughout the 1980s.
D) From 1980 to 1990 the difference in average income between employees with advanced degrees and those with bachelor’s degrees also increased.
E) During the 1980s there were some employees with no college degree who earned incomes comparable to the top incomes earned by employees with a college degree.

OG 2017 New Question
[Reveal] Spoiler: OA

_________________

Md. Abdur Rakib

Please Press +1 Kudos,If it helps
Sentence Correction-Collection of Ron Purewal's "elliptical construction/analogies" for SC Challenges

Kudos [?]: 2943 [3], given: 220

Board of Directors
User avatar
G
Status: QA & VA Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Jun 2011
Posts: 3102

Kudos [?]: 1119 [0], given: 327

Location: India
GPA: 3.5
WE: Business Development (Commercial Banking)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member
Re: The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 18 Jun 2016, 11:05
2
This post was
BOOKMARKED
AbdurRakib wrote:
The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have college degrees, compared with those who do not have such degrees, doubled between 1980 and 1990. Some analysts have hypothesized that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation described above?


A) During the 1980s a growing percentage of college graduates, unable to find jobs requiring a college degree, took unskilled jobs.
B) The average age of all employees increased slightly during the 1980s.
C) The unemployment rate changed very little throughout the 1980s.
D) From 1980 to 1990 the difference in average income between employees with advanced degrees and those with bachelor’s degrees also increased.
E) During the 1980s there were some employees with no college degree who earned incomes comparable to the top incomes earned by employees with a college degree.

OG 2017 New Question


Diff in avg income of degree holders and non degree holder - Doubled from 80's to 90's
Incr comp amongst employers was responsible for the increase


(A) States college students in 90's were unable to find jobs took up unskilled jobs ( which they didn't took earlier in the 80's) thus their avg salary decreased ; widening the difference in the average income in the 90's...
_________________

Thanks and Regards

Abhishek....

PLEASE FOLLOW THE RULES FOR POSTING IN QA AND VA FORUM AND USE SEARCH FUNCTION BEFORE POSTING NEW QUESTIONS

How to use Search Function in GMAT Club | Rules for Posting in QA forum | Writing Mathematical Formulas |Rules for Posting in VA forum | Request Expert's Reply ( VA Forum Only )

Kudos [?]: 1119 [0], given: 327

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
B
Joined: 27 Mar 2016
Posts: 338

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 26

Location: United States (CO)
GMAT 1: 770 Q51 V44
GPA: 3.69
WE: Analyst (Consulting)
The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Jun 2016, 01:17
Wow A is a perfect answer choice. Not only does it attack the claim that employers competed more for college graduates, but it also points out that the competition actually could have actually lead to a lower income gap.

Kudos [?]: 114 [0], given: 26

4 KUDOS received
Director
Director
User avatar
Joined: 04 Jun 2016
Posts: 647

Kudos [?]: 379 [4], given: 36

GMAT 1: 750 Q49 V43
The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 30 Jul 2016, 09:44
4
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have college degrees, compared with those who do not have such degrees, doubled between 1980 and 1990. Some analysts have hypothesized that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation described above?

ANSWER IS A
In 1980 salary per month
No degree employee:- 100 $
Degree employee:- 110 $
Difference = 10 $

In 1990 salary per month
No degree employee = 200 $
Degree employee= 516 $
Difference=316 $


Main reason for the growing difference in salary of degree and no degree workers; the degree holders of 1980 who sold themselves short and started working at the same pay as the non degree holders.
Result:- Very little salary difference between degree and no degree employee

Fast Forward to 1990
Degree holder took only high paying jobs whereas no degree took the same worker level low paying jobs.
Result :- The salary difference between degree and non degree worker increased.


Another reason :- 1980 workers, owing to their college degrees , later got promoted during a decade and thus become managers, supervisors and other high paying post, where as no degree stayed at the same worker level.
RESULT:- In 1990 , the degree employee who was once a low level worker is now a manager and his salary his higher than no degree worker. Therefore the difference.

ANSWER A.


A) During the 1980s a growing percentage of college graduates, unable to find jobs requiring a college degree, took unskilled jobs.
B) The average age of all employees increased slightly during the 1980s.
C) The unemployment rate changed very little throughout the 1980s.
D) From 1980 to 1990 the difference in average income between employees with advanced degrees and those with bachelor’s degrees also increased.
E) During the 1980s there were some employees with no college degree who earned incomes comparable to the top incomes earned by employees with a college degree.



AbdurRakib wrote:
The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have college degrees, compared with those who do not have such degrees, doubled between 1980 and 1990. Some analysts have hypothesized that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation described above?


A) During the 1980s a growing percentage of college graduates, unable to find jobs requiring a college degree, took unskilled jobs.
B) The average age of all employees increased slightly during the 1980s.
C) The unemployment rate changed very little throughout the 1980s.
D) From 1980 to 1990 the difference in average income between employees with advanced degrees and those with bachelor’s degrees also increased.
E) During the 1980s there were some employees with no college degree who earned incomes comparable to the top incomes earned by employees with a college degree.

OG 2017 New Question

_________________

Posting an answer without an explanation is "GOD COMPLEX". The world doesn't need any more gods. Please explain you answers properly.
FINAL GOODBYE :- 17th SEPTEMBER 2016. .. 16 March 2017 - I am back but for all purposes please consider me semi-retired.

Kudos [?]: 379 [4], given: 36

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
S
Joined: 07 Sep 2014
Posts: 484

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 342

Concentration: Finance, Marketing
CAT Tests
Re: The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 01 Aug 2016, 01:35
Conclusion:

increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

so it is assuming a> x
what if

a =x and b<y (that means avg income of non degree employee has reduced)
400-300 =100 / 400-200 =200


A) During the 1980s a growing percentage of college graduates, unable to find jobs requiring a college degree, took unskilled jobs.
Working skilled or unskilled, we want to check their income.


B) The average age of all employees increased slightly during the 1980s.
Age has no role in play.

C) The unemployment rate changed very little throughout the 1980s.


D) From 1980 to 1990 the difference in average income between employees with advanced degrees and those with bachelor’s degrees also increased.
this attacks conclusion. the reason of gap is not because suddenly company are fighting for college degree. it is just that average income for advanced degree has increased and that is responsible for high avg income of that particular group.


E) During the 1980s there were some employees with no college degree who earned incomes comparable to the top incomes earned by employees with a college degree.

why my process is wrong.

Kudos [?]: 36 [0], given: 342

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
avatar
Joined: 02 Dec 2014
Posts: 369

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 349

Location: Russian Federation
Concentration: General Management, Economics
GMAT 1: 640 Q44 V33
WE: Sales (Telecommunications)
Re: The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 04 Aug 2016, 11:20
HiLine wrote:
Wow A is a perfect answer choice. Not only does it attack the claim that employers competed more for college graduates, but it also points out that the competition actually could have actually lead to a lower income gap.


At first i couldn't understand why A is correct. But now i do. Looks like this question is about two process. First is when college graduates couldn't find a job that required college degree and hence took unskilled positions. This process should narrow the gap between incomes of two groups. That is why i decided that this choice is wrong. But looks like at the same time this process lead to shortage of graduates with college degrees (since only few were able to find skilled jobs) and to rise of salaries of college graduates thus widening salary gap again.
_________________

"Are you gangsters?" - "No we are Russians!"

Kudos [?]: 92 [0], given: 349

Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2016
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 32

Location: United Kingdom
Schools: Stanford '19 (S)
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V40
GPA: 4
Premium Member
The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Aug 2016, 10:13
A) is the gmat answer. Here is why it is wrong.

The hypothesis is that increased competition for employees drove up income. Ie, At its essence that a supply demand in imbalance vis a vis roles for college graduates vs supply of graduates caused wages to rise and that this rise continued over the 1980s.

A is wrong for the following reasons

1) First of all "a growing %"... if this is a growing % from 0 to 2% then it would have had 0 impact on the overall average. Its bizarre that the OG writers catch themselves out on their own logic test.
2) Unable to find jobs requiring a college degree - Lazily one could infer that this is supportive for the idea that there was not many jobs available - But really only refers to the experience of the "growing %" which as above could have been tiny.
3) Furthermore - Increased wages = Increased supply of labor. This can properly be inferred by the construction of the hypothesis. Therefore it is in fact logically CONSISTENT that a growing number graduates wouldnt have found jobs if wages were rising as the overall supply would increase.
4) Says nothing about the wage level of the jobs that the graduates took - an unskilled job in a boom industry might have wages significantly higher than skilled jobs in stable industrys

There really is no right answer here - D is possible as it shows an alternitive explanation - that in general, an increased stratification of wages occured relative to level of skill as opposed to driven by supply and demand and C) is certainly valid as a stable U/E implies that there were no specific shortages of employees available.

Either are better than A

Come on OG - sort it out!



The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have college degrees, compared with those who do not have such degrees, doubled between 1980 and 1990. Some analysts have hypothesized that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation described above?


A) During the 1980s a growing percentage of college graduates, unable to find jobs requiring a college degree, took unskilled jobs.
B) The average age of all employees increased slightly during the 1980s.
C) The unemployment rate changed very little throughout the 1980s.
D) From 1980 to 1990 the difference in average income between employees with advanced degrees and those with bachelor’s degrees also increased.
E) During the 1980s there were some employees with no college degree who earned incomes comparable to the top incomes earned by employees with a college degree.

Last edited by Abhishek009 on 28 Aug 2016, 12:05, edited 1 time in total.
Modified the Contents of the post for Healthy Discussion

Kudos [?]: 9 [0], given: 32

Expert Post
4 KUDOS received
Verbal Expert
User avatar
S
Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 3200

Kudos [?]: 3522 [4], given: 22

Location: Germany
Schools: HHL Leipzig
GMAT 1: 780 Q50 V47
WE: Corporate Finance (Pharmaceuticals and Biotech)
GMAT ToolKit User Premium Member Reviews Badge
The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 28 Aug 2016, 14:38
4
This post received
KUDOS
Expert's post
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
kconn wrote:
A) is the gmat answer. Here is why it is wrong.

The hypothesis is that increased competition for employees drove up income. Ie, At its essence that a supply demand in imbalance vis a vis roles for college graduates vs supply of graduates caused wages to rise and that this rise continued over the 1980s.

A is wrong for the following reasons

1) First of all "a growing %"... if this is a growing % from 0 to 2% then it would have had 0 impact on the overall average. Its bizarre that the OG writers catch themselves out on their own logic test.
2) Unable to find jobs requiring a college degree - Lazily one could infer that this is supportive for the idea that there was not many jobs available - But really only refers to the experience of the "growing %" which as above could have been tiny.
3) Furthermore - Increased wages = Increased supply of labor. This can properly be inferred by the construction of the hypothesis. Therefore it is in fact logically CONSISTENT that a growing number graduates wouldnt have found jobs if wages were rising as the overall supply would increase.
4) Says nothing about the wage level of the jobs that the graduates took - an unskilled job in a boom industry might have wages significantly higher than skilled jobs in stable industrys

There really is no right answer here - D is possible as it shows an alternitive explanation - that in general, an increased stratification of wages occured relative to level of skill as opposed to driven by supply and demand and C) is certainly valid as a stable U/E implies that there were no specific shortages of employees available.

Either are better than A

Come on OG - sort it out!



The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have college degrees, compared with those who do not have such degrees, doubled between 1980 and 1990. Some analysts have hypothesized that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation described above?


A) During the 1980s a growing percentage of college graduates, unable to find jobs requiring a college degree, took unskilled jobs.
B) The average age of all employees increased slightly during the 1980s.
C) The unemployment rate changed very little throughout the 1980s.
D) From 1980 to 1990 the difference in average income between employees with advanced degrees and those with bachelor’s degrees also increased.
E) During the 1980s there were some employees with no college degree who earned incomes comparable to the top incomes earned by employees with a college degree.


Looking at your point 3, I presume that you have some Economics background. Therefore I shall try to explain to you on the same line:

1. It actually does not matter how much growth the percentage of college graduates have. In fact it does not matter, whether the percentage is at all growing or decreasing - the point in option A is that there is an excess of supply of labour (college graduates) and the demand is lower than supply. This excess supply should pull the wages down.

2. Same argument as 1 above.

3. You have basically reversed the cause and effect chain here. Yes, you are right that if the wage increases (because of drop in supply of labour or inflation or advance in technology whatsoever), the supply of labour will increase; an equilibrium will be attained at a point towards the right of the price (wage)-quantity(labour) curve. However the reverse is not correct - for some reason, if the number of labours increase (immigrants, population boom etc.), then the wages will be pulled down - this is where you have made a mistake by equating Increased wages = Increased supply of labor : Increased supply of labour DOES NOT increase wage, but pulls it down.

4. Why would you compare unskilled job of one particular industry to to skilled job of another industry ? It is definitely not illogical to assume that an unskilled job has a lower wage than a skilled job.


Why A is correct? The passage claims that the difference in wages is caused by an excess demand for labour ( D-S is positive), driving the wage up ( make it clear - this is exactly in line economic theory!!)
Option A states that there is an excess in labour i.e. S-D is positive, hence the wages should have been pulled down, not up ( again exactly in line with economic theory !!) - therefore there must be some other reason for the difference in wages. Hence A weakens the argument.

Kudos [?]: 3522 [4], given: 22

1 KUDOS received
Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 18 Sep 2015
Posts: 109

Kudos [?]: 35 [1], given: 612

GMAT 1: 610 Q43 V31
GMAT 2: 610 Q47 V27
GMAT 3: 650 Q48 V31
GMAT 4: 700 Q49 V35
WE: Project Management (Health Care)
GMAT ToolKit User
Re: The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 19 Oct 2016, 07:53
1
This post received
KUDOS
1
This post was
BOOKMARKED
AbdurRakib wrote:
The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have college degrees, compared with those who do not have such degrees, doubled between 1980 and 1990. Some analysts have hypothesized that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation described above?


A) During the 1980s a growing percentage of college graduates, unable to find jobs requiring a college degree, took unskilled jobs.
B) The average age of all employees increased slightly during the 1980s.
C) The unemployment rate changed very little throughout the 1980s.
D) From 1980 to 1990 the difference in average income between employees with advanced degrees and those with bachelor’s degrees also increased.
E) During the 1980s there were some employees with no college degree who earned incomes comparable to the top incomes earned by employees with a college degree.

OG 2017 New Question


The conclusion is based on the assumption that there there was more demand than supply, otherwise the companies would not have needed to compete over the employees.

Answer choice A clearly shows that there was no demand, hence the conclusion is weakened.

Kudos [?]: 35 [1], given: 612

1 KUDOS received
Intern
Intern
avatar
Joined: 20 Aug 2016
Posts: 11

Kudos [?]: 9 [1], given: 32

Location: United Kingdom
Schools: Stanford '19 (S)
GMAT 1: 720 Q48 V40
GPA: 4
Premium Member
Re: The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Oct 2016, 04:45
1
This post received
KUDOS
sayantanc2k wrote:
kconn wrote:
A) is the gmat answer. Here is why it is wrong.

The hypothesis is that increased competition for employees drove up income. Ie, At its essence that a supply demand in imbalance vis a vis roles for college graduates vs supply of graduates caused wages to rise and that this rise continued over the 1980s.

A is wrong for the following reasons

1) First of all "a growing %"... if this is a growing % from 0 to 2% then it would have had 0 impact on the overall average. Its bizarre that the OG writers catch themselves out on their own logic test.
2) Unable to find jobs requiring a college degree - Lazily one could infer that this is supportive for the idea that there was not many jobs available - But really only refers to the experience of the "growing %" which as above could have been tiny.
3) Furthermore - Increased wages = Increased supply of labor. This can properly be inferred by the construction of the hypothesis. Therefore it is in fact logically CONSISTENT that a growing number graduates wouldnt have found jobs if wages were rising as the overall supply would increase.
4) Says nothing about the wage level of the jobs that the graduates took - an unskilled job in a boom industry might have wages significantly higher than skilled jobs in stable industrys

There really is no right answer here - D is possible as it shows an alternitive explanation - that in general, an increased stratification of wages occured relative to level of skill as opposed to driven by supply and demand and C) is certainly valid as a stable U/E implies that there were no specific shortages of employees available.

Either are better than A

Come on OG - sort it out!



The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have college degrees, compared with those who do not have such degrees, doubled between 1980 and 1990. Some analysts have hypothesized that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation described above?


A) During the 1980s a growing percentage of college graduates, unable to find jobs requiring a college degree, took unskilled jobs.
B) The average age of all employees increased slightly during the 1980s.
C) The unemployment rate changed very little throughout the 1980s.
D) From 1980 to 1990 the difference in average income between employees with advanced degrees and those with bachelor’s degrees also increased.
E) During the 1980s there were some employees with no college degree who earned incomes comparable to the top incomes earned by employees with a college degree.


Looking at your point 3, I presume that you have some Economics background. Therefore I shall try to explain to you on the same line:

1. It actually does not matter how much growth the percentage of college graduates have. In fact it does not matter, whether the percentage is at all growing or decreasing - the point in option A is that there is an excess of supply of labour (college graduates) and the demand is lower than supply. This excess supply should pull the wages down.

2. Same argument as 1 above.

3. You have basically reversed the cause and effect chain here. Yes, you are right that if the wage increases (because of drop in supply of labour or inflation or advance in technology whatsoever), the supply of labour will increase; an equilibrium will be attained at a point towards the right of the price (wage)-quantity(labour) curve. However the reverse is not correct - for some reason, if the number of labours increase (immigrants, population boom etc.), then the wages will be pulled down - this is where you have made a mistake by equating Increased wages = Increased supply of labor : Increased supply of labour DOES NOT increase wage, but pulls it down.

4. Why would you compare unskilled job of one particular industry to to skilled job of another industry ? It is definitely not illogical to assume that an unskilled job has a lower wage than a skilled job.


Why A is correct? The passage claims that the difference in wages is caused by an excess demand for labour ( D-S is positive), driving the wage up ( make it clear - this is exactly in line economic theory!!)
Option A states that there is an excess in labour i.e. S-D is positive, hence the wages should have been pulled down, not up ( again exactly in line with economic theory !!) - therefore there must be some other reason for the difference in wages. Hence A weakens the argument.


Thank you for taking the time to respond to quite an incoherant rant... yes I do have an economics background but this really wasnt helping me at the start of my gmat study (which was when I posted this) and clearly A is the GMAT answer.

From a purely technical perspective and what I was trying (and failing) to explain was the following... and to be completely clear, this is not to argue that I was correct.

There are indeed situations whereby incresed competition leads to increased wages and decreased job opportunities. If for example productivity per quality of graduate is non linear and rises => (employers' utility curve from a single college graduate moves higher) this leads to the value of one graduate moving up but absolute demand of graduates moving down. Wages increase per graduate for the smaller pool (wages = cost/unit of productivity) but there is increased competition for the best graduates.

Indeed, this dynamic can often cause a situation whereby people are pulled into an industry due to the wages and if one was to consider the barriers to entry to get a degree are less than to get a job in that industry this would have the necessary effect of increasing average supply over time. The rate of change of wage increases would slow yes and maybe revert to the level of inflation but framed in the context of a ten year period, this is sufficient time for both a doubling of wages and gradual increase in difficulty to find jobs to occur.

Clearly though there are too many assumptions, external facts and downright jumps in logic for this to be useful for the GMAT but thought I would try to explain what I was getting at in my rant. Thanks again

Kudos [?]: 9 [1], given: 32

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 01 Sep 2016
Posts: 118

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 92

CAT Tests
Re: The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 25 Dec 2016, 08:25
Thank you for this great explanation :)

sayantanc2k wrote:
kconn wrote:
A) is the gmat answer. Here is why it is wrong.

The hypothesis is that increased competition for employees drove up income. Ie, At its essence that a supply demand in imbalance vis a vis roles for college graduates vs supply of graduates caused wages to rise and that this rise continued over the 1980s.

A is wrong for the following reasons

1) First of all "a growing %"... if this is a growing % from 0 to 2% then it would have had 0 impact on the overall average. Its bizarre that the OG writers catch themselves out on their own logic test.
2) Unable to find jobs requiring a college degree - Lazily one could infer that this is supportive for the idea that there was not many jobs available - But really only refers to the experience of the "growing %" which as above could have been tiny.
3) Furthermore - Increased wages = Increased supply of labor. This can properly be inferred by the construction of the hypothesis. Therefore it is in fact logically CONSISTENT that a growing number graduates wouldnt have found jobs if wages were rising as the overall supply would increase.
4) Says nothing about the wage level of the jobs that the graduates took - an unskilled job in a boom industry might have wages significantly higher than skilled jobs in stable industrys

There really is no right answer here - D is possible as it shows an alternitive explanation - that in general, an increased stratification of wages occured relative to level of skill as opposed to driven by supply and demand and C) is certainly valid as a stable U/E implies that there were no specific shortages of employees available.

Either are better than A

Come on OG - sort it out!



The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have college degrees, compared with those who do not have such degrees, doubled between 1980 and 1990. Some analysts have hypothesized that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation described above?


A) During the 1980s a growing percentage of college graduates, unable to find jobs requiring a college degree, took unskilled jobs.
B) The average age of all employees increased slightly during the 1980s.
C) The unemployment rate changed very little throughout the 1980s.
D) From 1980 to 1990 the difference in average income between employees with advanced degrees and those with bachelor’s degrees also increased.
E) During the 1980s there were some employees with no college degree who earned incomes comparable to the top incomes earned by employees with a college degree.


Looking at your point 3, I presume that you have some Economics background. Therefore I shall try to explain to you on the same line:

1. It actually does not matter how much growth the percentage of college graduates have. In fact it does not matter, whether the percentage is at all growing or decreasing - the point in option A is that there is an excess of supply of labour (college graduates) and the demand is lower than supply. This excess supply should pull the wages down.

2. Same argument as 1 above.

3. You have basically reversed the cause and effect chain here. Yes, you are right that if the wage increases (because of drop in supply of labour or inflation or advance in technology whatsoever), the supply of labour will increase; an equilibrium will be attained at a point towards the right of the price (wage)-quantity(labour) curve. However the reverse is not correct - for some reason, if the number of labours increase (immigrants, population boom etc.), then the wages will be pulled down - this is where you have made a mistake by equating Increased wages = Increased supply of labor : Increased supply of labour DOES NOT increase wage, but pulls it down.

4. Why would you compare unskilled job of one particular industry to to skilled job of another industry ? It is definitely not illogical to assume that an unskilled job has a lower wage than a skilled job.


Why A is correct? The passage claims that the difference in wages is caused by an excess demand for labour ( D-S is positive), driving the wage up ( make it clear - this is exactly in line economic theory!!)
Option A states that there is an excess in labour i.e. S-D is positive, hence the wages should have been pulled down, not up ( again exactly in line with economic theory !!) - therefore there must be some other reason for the difference in wages. Hence A weakens the argument.

Kudos [?]: 10 [0], given: 92

Manager
Manager
avatar
B
Joined: 21 Mar 2017
Posts: 62

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 165

Re: The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 27 Jul 2017, 10:42
sayantanc2k wrote:
kconn wrote:
A) is the gmat answer. Here is why it is wrong.

The hypothesis is that increased competition for employees drove up income. Ie, At its essence that a supply demand in imbalance vis a vis roles for college graduates vs supply of graduates caused wages to rise and that this rise continued over the 1980s.

A is wrong for the following reasons

1) First of all "a growing %"... if this is a growing % from 0 to 2% then it would have had 0 impact on the overall average. Its bizarre that the OG writers catch themselves out on their own logic test.
2) Unable to find jobs requiring a college degree - Lazily one could infer that this is supportive for the idea that there was not many jobs available - But really only refers to the experience of the "growing %" which as above could have been tiny.
3) Furthermore - Increased wages = Increased supply of labor. This can properly be inferred by the construction of the hypothesis. Therefore it is in fact logically CONSISTENT that a growing number graduates wouldnt have found jobs if wages were rising as the overall supply would increase.
4) Says nothing about the wage level of the jobs that the graduates took - an unskilled job in a boom industry might have wages significantly higher than skilled jobs in stable industrys

There really is no right answer here - D is possible as it shows an alternitive explanation - that in general, an increased stratification of wages occured relative to level of skill as opposed to driven by supply and demand and C) is certainly valid as a stable U/E implies that there were no specific shortages of employees available.

Either are better than A

Come on OG - sort it out!



The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have college degrees, compared with those who do not have such degrees, doubled between 1980 and 1990. Some analysts have hypothesized that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation described above?


A) During the 1980s a growing percentage of college graduates, unable to find jobs requiring a college degree, took unskilled jobs.
B) The average age of all employees increased slightly during the 1980s.
C) The unemployment rate changed very little throughout the 1980s.
D) From 1980 to 1990 the difference in average income between employees with advanced degrees and those with bachelor’s degrees also increased.
E) During the 1980s there were some employees with no college degree who earned incomes comparable to the top incomes earned by employees with a college degree.


Looking at your point 3, I presume that you have some Economics background. Therefore I shall try to explain to you on the same line:

1. It actually does not matter how much growth the percentage of college graduates have. In fact it does not matter, whether the percentage is at all growing or decreasing - the point in option A is that there is an excess of supply of labour (college graduates) and the demand is lower than supply. This excess supply should pull the wages down.

2. Same argument as 1 above.

3. You have basically reversed the cause and effect chain here. Yes, you are right that if the wage increases (because of drop in supply of labour or inflation or advance in technology whatsoever), the supply of labour will increase; an equilibrium will be attained at a point towards the right of the price (wage)-quantity(labour) curve. However the reverse is not correct - for some reason, if the number of labours increase (immigrants, population boom etc.), then the wages will be pulled down - this is where you have made a mistake by equating Increased wages = Increased supply of labor : Increased supply of labour DOES NOT increase wage, but pulls it down.

4. Why would you compare unskilled job of one particular industry to to skilled job of another industry ? It is definitely not illogical to assume that an unskilled job has a lower wage than a skilled job.


Why A is correct? The passage claims that the difference in wages is caused by an excess demand for labour ( D-S is positive), driving the wage up ( make it clear - this is exactly in line economic theory!!)
Option A states that there is an excess in labour i.e. S-D is positive, hence the wages should have been pulled down, not up ( again exactly in line with economic theory !!) - therefore there must be some other reason for the difference in wages. Hence A weakens the argument.



sayantanc2k
But Option A states that there WAS an excess in labour in 1980. NOT 1990!!!!!!! So option A actually tried to tell that demand increases after 1980 which reflects the conclusion of argument actually. So how it acts as an weakener?!!!!!!!!!

Kudos [?]: 11 [0], given: 165

Senior Manager
Senior Manager
User avatar
G
Joined: 19 Oct 2012
Posts: 335

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 103

Location: India
Concentration: General Management, Operations
GMAT 1: 660 Q47 V35
GMAT 2: 710 Q50 V38
GPA: 3.81
WE: Information Technology (Computer Software)
CAT Tests
Re: The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have [#permalink]

Show Tags

New post 20 Oct 2017, 07:34
AbdurRakib wrote:
The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have college degrees, compared with those who do not have such degrees, doubled between 1980 and 1990. Some analysts have hypothesized that increased competition between employers for employees with college degrees drove up income for such employees.

Which of the following, if true, most seriously undermines the explanation described above?


A) During the 1980s a growing percentage of college graduates, unable to find jobs requiring a college degree, took unskilled jobs.
B) The average age of all employees increased slightly during the 1980s.
C) The unemployment rate changed very little throughout the 1980s.
D) From 1980 to 1990 the difference in average income between employees with advanced degrees and those with bachelor’s degrees also increased.
E) During the 1980s there were some employees with no college degree who earned incomes comparable to the top incomes earned by employees with a college degree.

OG 2017 New Question


Here is what my take is:

The conclusion states that there was increased competition between employers to get the right candidate with the college degree for the job. This increased competition led to differences in the pay scale. Option A states that there weren't enough jobs for the college graduates. This implies that there was no competition between employers for the graduates. Hence there must have been other reasons why the pay scale widened between the two groups here. This option satisfies the weakening conditions.

As a stretch, we can go on to say that the pay scale gap may have been lessened as a result of this shortage of jobs. Because ideally when there are fewer jobs and more applicants, the pay scale is generally lower. Demand (which is less i.e. less jobs) drives the Supply (more graduates available). But this stretch thought process actually attacks the premise. Hence we should not go here.
_________________

Citius, Altius, Fortius

Kudos [?]: 55 [0], given: 103

Re: The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have   [#permalink] 20 Oct 2017, 07:34
Display posts from previous: Sort by

The difference in average annual income in favor of employees who have

  new topic post reply Question banks Downloads My Bookmarks Reviews Important topics  


GMAT Club MBA Forum Home| About| Terms and Conditions| GMAT Club Rules| Contact| Sitemap

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group | Emoji artwork provided by EmojiOne

Kindly note that the GMAT® test is a registered trademark of the Graduate Management Admission Council®, and this site has neither been reviewed nor endorsed by GMAC®.