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.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Game of Timers is a team-based competition based on solving GMAT questions to win epic prizes! Starting July 1st, compete to win prep materials while studying for GMAT! Registration is Open!
The recent decline in the employment rate was spurred by predictions
[#permalink]
Show Tags
Updated on: 05 Nov 2018, 08:13
3
20
00:00
A
B
C
D
E
Difficulty:
75% (hard)
Question Stats:
55% (01:56) correct 45% (02:01) wrong based on 869 sessions
HideShow timer Statistics
The recent decline in the employment rate was spurred by predictions of slow economic growth in the coming year. However, those predictions would not have affected the employment rate if it had not been for the lack of capital reserves of major industries. So if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the validity of the argument above?
A. Major industry foresaw the drop in employment.
B. Some major industries had appreciable capital reserves.
C. An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate.
D. The government could pass legislation mandating that major industries set aside a fixed amount as capital reserves every year.
E. The drop in the employment rate was more severe this year than last.
Up to my understanding if GMAT question says-->Increasing A leads to increase B ) And now we need to weaken this conclusion That means we need to show Increasing A DOES NOT leads to increase B Now, if we come across an option which says Increasing C DOES NOT leads to increase B ( This option can't WEAKEN until C and A are interlinked )
you are correct in the observation. But the logic in the Q does not follow the same pattern.. It says:- However, those predictions would not have affected the employment rate if it had not been for the lack of capital reserves of major industries... the use of "if it had not been for" tells us that capital reseves is the only reason" So to negate it, we have to show " that there can be other reasons too which can lead to same outcome"
here the logic is.. 1)A would not have happened if it had not been for B.. that is Only B can lead to A.. 2)to weaken this, you have to show C can also lead to A.. this is exactly Choice C is doing .. _________________
Re: The recent decline in the employment rate was spurred by predictions
[#permalink]
Show Tags
08 Jul 2008, 06:18
1
The recent decline in the employment rate was spurred by predictions of slow economic growth in the coming year. However, those predictions would not have affected the employment rate if it had not been for the lack of capital reserves of major industries. So if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the validity of the argument above?
C)An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate.
This clearly mentiones that just increasing capital reserves will not stop the employement rate. There are other factors/variables that can affect the employement rate.
Re: The recent decline in the employment rate was spurred by predictions
[#permalink]
Show Tags
01 Sep 2013, 10:31
1
The conclusion is that "if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future." Why? Because major industry did not have capital reserves. The author assumes that having capital reserves is sufficient to prevent a decline in the employment rate. We are asked to cast doubt (i.e., weaken) the author's claim. (A) Whether the drop in employment was foreseen does not relate to the core of the argument, which is that capital reserves will prevent another decline in the employment rate. (B) The fact that some major industries had appreciable capital reserves does not contradict the claim that an increase in these reserves would prevent a future drop in employment rates. (C) CORRECT. The author neglects to take into account the fact that other factors, such as an increase in labor costs, could adversely affect the employment rate. For example, if the cost of labor becomes prohibitively expensive, even with increased reserves, the employment rate could decline. (D) Legislation mandating a certain level of reserves does not contradict the claim that increased reserves would prevent a drop in employment rates. (E) The fact that the employment rate was more severe this year than last does not contradict the claim that an increase in reserves would prevent a drop in the employment rate.
Although I choose the correct answer, but I am not convinced. I opted C because other options ( A, D and E) are completely irrelevant.
Now left with B and C.
Conclusion- if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future As we have to weaken the argument, so we need to find an option which says Increasing capital reserve not going improve employment rate.
B. Some major industries had appreciable capital reserves. The word "SOME" makes me cautious. Therefore eliminated.
C. An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate.
I opted it bcz nothing left. What is the link between LABOR COSTS and CASH RESERVES....?
Does it mean if labor cost increases then we have to take amount from cash reserve and hence employment rate not going to improve..? Am I rite..?
Although I choose the correct answer, but I am not convinced. I opted C because other options ( A, D and E) are completely irrelevant
Conclusion- if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future As we have to weaken the argument, so we need to find an option which says Increasing capital reserve not going improve employment rate.
B. Some major industries had appreciable capital reserves. The word "SOME" makes me cautious. Therefore eliminated.
C. An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate.
I opted it bcz nothing left. What is the link between LABOR COSTS and CASH RESERVES....?
Does it mean if labor cost increases then we have to take amount from cash reserve and hence employment rate not going to improve..? Am I rite..?
Please assist.
Hi,
here, we have to doubt the argument, and just not the conclusion..
the argument is.. decline in employment rate was spurred by predictions of slow growth. However,predictions would not have affected if major ind had capital reserves... and conclusion is if the major industries increase their cash reserves, there will be no decline in employment rate..
You have eliminated B for correct reasons ..
the reasoning for C to be correct is:- C. An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate...
C is giving reasons other than sufficient reserves that can result in decrease of employment rate. So even if the industries had sufficient reserves, an increase in labour costs can lead to decrease in employment rate..
_________________
Although I choose the correct answer, but I am not convinced. I opted C because other options ( A, D and E) are completely irrelevant.
Now left with B and C.
Conclusion- if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future As we have to weaken the argument, so we need to find an option which says Increasing capital reserve not going improve employment rate.
B. Some major industries had appreciable capital reserves. The word "SOME" makes me cautious. Therefore eliminated.
C. An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate.
I opted it bcz nothing left. What is the link between LABOR COSTS and CASH RESERVES....?
Does it mean if labor cost increases then we have to take amount from cash reserve and hence employment rate not going to improve..? Am I rite..?
Please assist.
Hi,
here, we have to doubt the argument, and just not the conclusion..
the argument is.. decline in employment rate was spurred by predictions of slow growth. However,predictions would not have affected if major ind had capital reserves... and conclusion is if the major industries increase their cash reserves, there will be no decline in employment rate..
You have eliminated B for correct reasons ..
the reasoning for C to be correct is:- C. An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate...
C is giving reasons other than sufficient reserves that can result in decrease of employment rate. So even if the industries had sufficient reserves, an increase in labour costs can lead to decrease in employment rate..
Up to my understanding if GMAT question says-->Increasing A leads to increase B ) And now we need to weaken this conclusion That means we need to show Increasing A DOES NOT leads to increase B Now, if we come across an option which says Increasing C DOES NOT leads to increase B ( This option can't WEAKEN until C and A are interlinked )
In argument
The conclusion says--> Increase in Cash reserves leads to improve employment rate or decrease Unemployment. Now if any option gives any kind of connection between Labor cost and Employment Rate--> WE DON'T CARE Bcz we just need to prove Improving Cash reserves does not improve employment rate.
We will only consider any option if it is going to make impact on Cash reserve and in turn impact on employment rate.
Re: The recent decline in the employment rate was spurred by predictions
[#permalink]
Show Tags
12 Apr 2017, 20:54
Conclusion :- "So if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future."
Weaken :- "Major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will decline in the future."
To weaken, we just need to find a choice that tells us there are other ways to decrease the employment rate. The answer choice C fits the bill :-
(C) CORRECT. The author neglects to take into account the fact that other factors, such as an increase in labor costs, could adversely affect the employment rate. For example, if the cost of labor becomes prohibitively expensive, even with increased reserves, the employment rate could decline.
_________________
Re: The recent decline in the employment rate was spurred by predictions
[#permalink]
Show Tags
15 Nov 2018, 05:32
aaron22197 wrote:
The recent decline in the employment rate was spurred by predictions of slow economic growth in the coming year. However, those predictions would not have affected the employment rate if it had not been for the lack of capital reserves of major industries. So if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the validity of the argument above?
A. Major industry foresaw the drop in employment.
B. Some major industries had appreciable capital reserves.
C. An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate.
D. The government could pass legislation mandating that major industries set aside a fixed amount as capital reserves every year.
E. The drop in the employment rate was more severe this year than last.
I think this is not a 700Q. Anyways let's get to basics.
Major industries increase the capital reserve -> no decline in the unemployment rate. To weaken the conclusion, You must see this as a causal passage. increasing capital reserve as the cause and decline in the unemployment as the effect. If A causes B, to weaken the conclusion One can show B causes A or C causes B.
Anyways... D. The government could pass legislation mandating that major industries set aside a fixed amount as capital reserves every year.
Tell me honestly would it weaken the conclusion, if the government mandates major industries to set aside a fixed amount. Then the employment rate might decline due to other factors or might not decline because of the available money..
E. The drop in the employment rate was more severe this year than last.
Drop in the employment rate in this year was more, so What? I should increase more reserve? Note that the increase in the reserve has not yet taken place. If it had taken place and the drop in the employment rate was more severe then it would be a weakener.. so as of now it is not.
A. Major industry foresaw the drop in employment.
Okay if they did why did not they increase the capital reserve? How is this related to capital reserve increase?
B. Some major industries had appreciable capital reserves. Yes it did.. Why did then the employment rate decline.. because only some major industries only had capital reserves? .. so if all had there would be no shortage of employment.. isn't this strengthening..
C. An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate.
If an increase in labor cost affected the employment rate... then capital reserves had no-effect (PROBABLY); so this is the best weakener.
Maybe, as then B would do a much better job of weakening the support. However, I don't think the GMAT would put you in a position where you'd have to choose between C and the "new version" of B.
_________________
Re: The recent decline in the employment rate was spurred by predictions
[#permalink]
Show Tags
17 May 2019, 23:24
aaron22197 wrote:
The recent decline in the employment rate was spurred by predictions of slow economic growth in the coming year. However, those predictions would not have affected the employment rate if it had not been for the lack of capital reserves of major industries. So if major industries increase their capital reserves, the employment rate will not decline in the future.
Which of the following, if true, casts the most doubt on the validity of the argument above?
A. Major industry foresaw the drop in employment.
B. Some major industries had appreciable capital reserves.
C. An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate.
D. The government could pass legislation mandating that major industries set aside a fixed amount as capital reserves every year.
E. The drop in the employment rate was more severe this year than last.
Sir i went through your document on Alternate Cause and learnt the following:
1. “X leads/can lead/will lead to Y” allows the possibility of an alternate route, Z, to reach the effect, Y. Therefore, an option statement presenting an alternate route does not weaken this conclusion type. 2. “X led to Y” is presenting a reason (X) for a specific occurrence in the past (Y). An option statement suggesting an alternate cause, Z, led to Y, creates doubts on the conclusion and thus, weakens the argument.
Applying the same in this question:
Argument : ↑ Capital Reserves ------> Employment Rate WILL NOT decline (Futuristic)
Since the above argument is of the class 'WILL LEAD TO" , An alternate route doesn't weaken the conclusion type. (the word 'ONLY' is also not explicitly stated)
Then why is option C " An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate." which is an alternate route weakens the argument ?
Sir i went through your document on Alternate Cause and learnt the following:
1. “X leads/can lead/will lead to Y” allows the possibility of an alternate route, Z, to reach the effect, Y. Therefore, an option statement presenting an alternate route does not weaken this conclusion type. 2. “X led to Y” is presenting a reason (X) for a specific occurrence in the past (Y). An option statement suggesting an alternate cause, Z, led to Y, creates doubts on the conclusion and thus, weakens the argument.
Applying the same in this question:
Argument : ↑ Capital Reserves ------> Employment Rate WILL NOT decline (Futuristic)
Since the above argument is of the class 'WILL LEAD TO" , An alternate route doesn't weaken the conclusion type. (the word 'ONLY' is also not explicitly stated)
Then why is option C " An increase in labor costs could adversely affect the employment rate." which is an alternate route weakens the argument ?
Kindly help me with this concern?
Hi Sahil,
Option C is not presenting an alternate cause. The conclusion here is: "If you do X, Y will not happen". An alternate cause will give you another way to make Y NOT happen. Right?
However, option C gives us a way to make Y HAPPEN. Essentially, option C gives us a reason to believe that even if we do X, Y will still happen. Thus, it weakens the argument.
_________________
close
55% (01:56) correct 
