Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit : Critical Reasoning (CR)

P

gmatt1476

Senior Manager

Joined: 04 Sep 2017

Posts: 318

Own Kudos [?]: 19736 [10]

Given Kudos: 50

Send PM

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

29 Sep 2019, 02:15

5

Kudos

5

Bookmarks

gmatt1476 wrote:

Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation. Nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, but those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines. So the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the columnist's argument?

A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees.

D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.

E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

CR05941.01

Official Explanation

Argument Evaluation

Which one of the five answer options provides the information that most strengthens the columnist's argument?

The columnist's reasoning seeks to explain why Metro City has higher per capita earnings than any city of comparable size. It attributes this to the fact that Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than do these other comparable cities.

Suppose the residents with university degrees outside the humanities had a higher per capita income than such residents in the comparable cities nationwide. If that were the case, then that would indicate that the higher per capita income of such residents is sufficient to explain Metro City's divergence in per capita income from the comparable cities.

That is, if we have information to indicate that is NOT the case, the case for the explanation offered—a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees—is strengthened.

A. This weakens the columnist's explanation by offering a potential alternative explanation: the higher per capita incomes of those with humanities degrees in Metro City might explain the higher per capita income of Metro City residents.

B. This does not lend additional support to the columnist's explanation. It suggests other possible explanations: first, the holders of degrees outside of humanities may have extraordinarily high incomes even for such graduates nationwide; second, Metro City may be unusual in having workers without university degrees who have an unusually high per capita income; third, both of these groups may have unusually high per capita incomes.

C. This does not lend additional support to the columnist's explanation. However, it is well-supported by the information offered in support of the argument's conclusion: university graduates generally earn more than others, and among university graduates, humanities graduates earn less than others.

D. Correct. As explained above, this information, by eliminating an alternative explanation to that offered in the argument's conclusion, strengthens the argument.

E. This information is consistent with the information provided in support of the argument's conclusion. It does not, however, provide additional support for the argument's conclusion. This information is consistent with alternative explanations for the higher per capita income of Metro City's residents. That is, for example, that the holders of non-humanities degrees, or those with no degrees at all, have particularly high per capita income.

The correct answer is D.

B

RK007

Manager

Joined: 09 Nov 2018

Posts: 68

Own Kudos [?]: 46 [0]

Given Kudos: 222

Schools: ISB '21 (A)

Send PM

Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

21 Oct 2019, 08:20

gmatt1476 wrote:

Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation. Nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, but those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines. So the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the columnist's argument?

A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees.

D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.

E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

CR05941.01

Official Explanation

Argument Evaluation

Which one of the five answer options provides the information that most strengthens the columnist's argument?

The columnist's reasoning seeks to explain why Metro City has higher per capita earnings than any city of comparable size. It attributes this to the fact that Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than do these other comparable cities.

Suppose the residents with university degrees outside the humanities had a higher per capita income than such residents in the comparable cities nationwide. If that were the case, then that would indicate that the higher per capita income of such residents is sufficient to explain Metro City's divergence in per capita income from the comparable cities.

That is, if we have information to indicate that is NOT the case, the case for the explanation offered—a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees—is strengthened.

A. This weakens the columnist's explanation by offering a potential alternative explanation: the higher per capita incomes of those with humanities degrees in Metro City might explain the higher per capita income of Metro City residents.

B. This does not lend additional support to the columnist's explanation. It suggests other possible explanations: first, the holders of degrees outside of humanities may have extraordinarily high incomes even for such graduates nationwide; second, Metro City may be unusual in having workers without university degrees who have an unusually high per capita income; third, both of these groups may have unusually high per capita incomes.

C. This does not lend additional support to the columnist's explanation. However, it is well-supported by the information offered in support of the argument's conclusion: university graduates generally earn more than others, and among university graduates, humanities graduates earn less than others.

D. Correct. As explained above, this information, by eliminating an alternative explanation to that offered in the argument's conclusion, strengthens the argument.

E. This information is consistent with the information provided in support of the argument's conclusion. It does not, however, provide additional support for the argument's conclusion. This information is consistent with alternative explanations for the higher per capita income of Metro City's residents. That is, for example, that the holders of non-humanities degrees, or those with no degrees at all, have particularly high per capita income.

The correct answer is D.

Hey nightblade354 GMATNinja daagh VeritasKarishma and other experts!
I have a query here. Isn't E just restating the conclusion? If yes, then can we just straight away reject such choices in exam? If no, then what am I missing? What's the difference? I really didn't comprehend the Official explanation though.
Thanks in advance

G

DealMakerOne

Manager

Joined: 01 Jan 2017

Posts: 61

Own Kudos [?]: 185 [0]

Given Kudos: 76

WE:General Management (Consulting)

Send PM

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

26 Oct 2019, 13:01

Quote:

Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation. Nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, but those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines. So the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.

% human degree in MC < % human degree in other cities
Salary uni grad > salary NOT uni grad
Salary human grad < salary NOT human grad
Conclusion: % resident w/ human degree in MC -> higher income per capita vs other cities

Quote:

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the columnist's argument?

Quote:

A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

Weaken. It attacks the premise “salary human grad < salary NOT human grad”. Out.

Quote:

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

Irrelevant. Out.

Quote:

C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees.

Salary uni+NOT human > NOT uni; good – strengthens two “areas” (salary uni grad, salary NOT human); restates premise; nothing new. Out.

Quote:

D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.

MC salary NOT human =< other cities salary NOT human; new factor – OTHER degrees DON’T earn MORE. Good one.

Quote:

E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

MC % uni grads human < other cities % uni grads human; restates the premise. Out.

OA: D.

B

Kiran123321abc

Intern

Joined: 13 Nov 2018

Posts: 4

Own Kudos [?]: 7 [0]

Given Kudos: 45

Location: India

Schools: Smith '22 Simon '22 Mason '22 Rutgers '22 Krannert '22

GMAT 1: 650 Q48 V31

GPA: 3.5

Send PM

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

10 Dec 2019, 10:45

gmatt1476 wrote:

Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation. Nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, but those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines. So the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the columnist's argument?

A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees.

D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.

E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

CR05941.01

GMATNinja can you please explain why E is wrong

B

gmatapprentice

Manager

Joined: 14 Nov 2018

Posts: 52

Own Kudos [?]: 14 [1]

Given Kudos: 211

Location: United Arab Emirates

Concentration: Finance, Strategy

Schools: LBS '22 (I)

GMAT 1: 590 Q42 V30

GMAT 2: 670 Q46 V36 Verified score

GPA: 2.6

Send PM

Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

02 Jan 2020, 06:36

1

Kudos

GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo iamsiddharthkapoor
After using POE for A, B, C and E, I approached the solution as follows:
D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.

This tells us that Metro non humanities per capita income is equal to other cities. Using weightage, a lower proportion of non humanities graduates in Metro city would yield a higher avg per capita income for Metro city since non humanities per capita income is higher than humanities per capita income.

Can you validate this approach?

L

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Posts: 6921

Own Kudos [?]: 63668 [6]

Given Kudos: 1774

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51

GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170

Send PM

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

20 Jan 2020, 09:45

5

Kudos

1

Bookmarks

Expert Reply

RK007 wrote:

gmatt1476 wrote:

Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation. Nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, but those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines. So the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the columnist's argument?

A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees.

D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.

E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

CR05941.01

Official Explanation

Argument Evaluation

Which one of the five answer options provides the information that most strengthens the columnist's argument?

The columnist's reasoning seeks to explain why Metro City has higher per capita earnings than any city of comparable size. It attributes this to the fact that Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than do these other comparable cities.

Suppose the residents with university degrees outside the humanities had a higher per capita income than such residents in the comparable cities nationwide. If that were the case, then that would indicate that the higher per capita income of such residents is sufficient to explain Metro City's divergence in per capita income from the comparable cities.

That is, if we have information to indicate that is NOT the case, the case for the explanation offered—a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees—is strengthened.

A. This weakens the columnist's explanation by offering a potential alternative explanation: the higher per capita incomes of those with humanities degrees in Metro City might explain the higher per capita income of Metro City residents.

B. This does not lend additional support to the columnist's explanation. It suggests other possible explanations: first, the holders of degrees outside of humanities may have extraordinarily high incomes even for such graduates nationwide; second, Metro City may be unusual in having workers without university degrees who have an unusually high per capita income; third, both of these groups may have unusually high per capita incomes.

C. This does not lend additional support to the columnist's explanation. However, it is well-supported by the information offered in support of the argument's conclusion: university graduates generally earn more than others, and among university graduates, humanities graduates earn less than others.

D. Correct. As explained above, this information, by eliminating an alternative explanation to that offered in the argument's conclusion, strengthens the argument.

E. This information is consistent with the information provided in support of the argument's conclusion. It does not, however, provide additional support for the argument's conclusion. This information is consistent with alternative explanations for the higher per capita income of Metro City's residents. That is, for example, that the holders of non-humanities degrees, or those with no degrees at all, have particularly high per capita income.

The correct answer is D.

I have a query here. Isn't E just restating the conclusion? If yes, then can we just straight away reject such choices in exam? If no, then what am I missing? What's the difference? I really didn't comprehend the Official explanation though.
Thanks in advance

Here's what the passage tells us:

Quote:

Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation.

Here's what choice (E) tells us:

Quote:

E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

These are the not equivalent statements. The passage describes the proportion of residents with humanities degrees, while Choice (E) describes the proportion of university graduates (a subset of residents) with humanities degrees. While both choices ultimately refer to the same group of people (university graduates in MC with humanities degrees), they are measuring this group as a proportion of different demographics (all residents vs. all university graduate residents).

Even so, the information in choice (E) does not strengthen the columnist's argument. (E) simply reveals that — like the % of humanities degree holders out of all residents — the % of humanities degree holders out of all graduates is low when compared to cities of similar size.

This doesn't give us any additional reasons to believe that Metro City's low proportion of residents with humanities degrees is the main reason that Metro City, has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size.

All that said, if you're looking for a strategy takeaway here, it's NOT to find a rule of thumb that helps you reject categories of answer choices. The takeaway here is that it's incredibly important to read precisely, then eliminate individual answer choices based on a clear understanding of what the question asked and what the choice says.

I hope this helps!

P

LoneSurvivor

Senior Manager

Joined: 23 Nov 2016

Posts: 312

Own Kudos [?]: 696 [0]

Given Kudos: 156

GMAT 1: 690 Q50 V33 Verified score

Send PM

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

25 Feb 2020, 01:32

Here we are given ,

1) Income of UG > NG
2) Income of graduates with Humanities earn less than any other discipline

Now Percapita income of Metrocity = Percapita of NH+Percapita of H

To compare Per capita of Metro city with any other comparable size means total population of both remain same

so the conclusion to be hold true Percapita of NH of both must be same

So D

S

harshbirajdar

Manager

Joined: 18 Feb 2018

Posts: 69

Own Kudos [?]: 38 [1]

Given Kudos: 322

Location: India

GMAT 1: 640 Q50 V26 Verified score

GMAT 2: 690 Q49 V34 Verified score

GMAT 3: 710 Q50 V36 Verified score

GMAT 4: 700 Q49 V36 Verified score

WE:Operations (Internet and New Media)

Send PM

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

23 Sep 2020, 21:22

1

Kudos

Half of the reasons given for elimination of (E) are incorrect (read gmatninja's post to understand why other explanations for (E) are incorrect). However, still not completely sure how to eliminate the last answer choice.

D

MBAB123

Director

Joined: 05 Jul 2020

Posts: 590

Own Kudos [?]: 301 [2]

Given Kudos: 154

GMAT 1: 720 Q49 V38

WE:Accounting (Accounting)

Send PM

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

24 Sep 2020, 08:14

1

Kudos

1

Bookmarks

harshbirajdar wrote:

Half of the reasons given for elimination of (E) are incorrect (read gmatninja's post to understand why other explanations for (E) are incorrect). However, still not completely sure how to eliminate the last answer choice.

Hey man! You could look at it this way - even if the ratio - Humanities:Other graduates is lower for metro city it doesnt necessarily tell us that that %age of humanities grads is the reason for high per capita income. With this situation it is entirely possible that the other graduates of metro city earn significantly more than other graduates of other cities.

That is how I eliminated it. Hope this helps!

L

KarishmaB

Tutor

Joined: 16 Oct 2010

Posts: 14823

Own Kudos [?]: 64916 [8]

Given Kudos: 426

Location: Pune, India

Send PM

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

09 Nov 2020, 02:46

4

Kudos

3

Bookmarks

Expert Reply

gmatt1476 wrote:

Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation. Nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, but those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines. So the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the columnist's argument?

A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees.

D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.

E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

CR05941.01

Following is the income hierarchy given in the premises so must be taken true:

(I) Graduates with other majors
(II) Graduates in Humanities
(III) Non graduates

Metro city has lower % of (II) in the population
Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation

Conclusion: So the main reason for higher income must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.

Seeing that metro city has lower % of (II), the argument is concluding that the higher per capita income must be because fewer people graduated in humanities. This would make sense if % of graduates in the population is the same (or even higher). Since other graduates earn more, with the same % of graduates Metro city would be expected to have higher per capita than other cities.

A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

This doesn't help our case. If percentage of graduates is lower in Metro city, percentage of Humanities graduates would be expected to be lower too. Then why is the per capita income higher? Perhaps the graduates get paid far more than graduates in other cities. Or perhaps the non graduates get paid more than non graduates in other cities.
Our conclusion doesn't make much sense.

C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees.

Given in the premises.

D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.

Correct. We are saying that other graduates' income is same as income on other graduates in other cities. So the higher income in Metro city is not because graduates in metro city are paid better. It does seem that lower % of humanities graduates could could account for higher per capita.

E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

This is consistent with the premises. Premises tell us that humanities degrees are a smaller % in overall population. This tells us that humanities degree are a smaller % in all graduates. But this doesn't strengthen that this smaller % is the reason for higher income.

The correct option has to strengthen that A is the cause of B. Option (D) does that by saying that C, a possible alternative cause, is not the cause of B.

G

goaltop30mba

Manager

Joined: 04 Dec 2015

Posts: 186

Own Kudos [?]: 64 [0]

Given Kudos: 407

Send PM

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

28 Nov 2020, 15:57

VeritasKarishma wrote:

gmatt1476 wrote:

Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation. Nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, but those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines. So the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the columnist's argument?

A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees.

D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.

E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

CR05941.01

Following is the income hierarchy given in the premises so must be taken true:

(I) Graduates with other majors
(II) Graduates in Humanities
(III) Non graduates

Metro city has lower % of (II) in the population
Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation

Conclusion: So the main reason for higher income must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.

Seeing that metro city has lower % of (II), the argument is concluding that the higher per capita income must be because fewer people graduated in humanities. This would make sense if % of graduates in the population is the same (or even higher). Since other graduates earn more, with the same % of graduates Metro city would be expected to have higher per capita than other cities.

A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

This doesn't help our case. If percentage of graduates is lower in Metro city, percentage of Humanities graduates would be expected to be lower too. Then why is the per capita income higher? Perhaps the graduates get paid far more than graduates in other cities. Or perhaps the non graduates get paid more than non graduates in other cities.
Our conclusion doesn't make much sense.

C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees.

Given in the premises.

D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.

Correct. We are saying that other graduates' income is same as income on other graduates in other cities. So the higher income in Metro city is not because graduates in metro city are paid better. It does seem that lower % of humanities graduates could could account for higher per capita.

E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

This is consistent with the premises. Premises tell us that humanities degrees are a smaller % in overall population. This tells us that humanities degree are a smaller % in all graduates. But this doesn't strengthen that this smaller % is the reason for higher income.

The correct option has to strengthen that A is the cause of B. Option (D) does that by saying that C, a possible alternative cause, is not the cause of B.

Hi Karishma,

Great explanation.

One doubt regarding the analysis — why are we ignoring people who don’t have any degree. It is not that those people don’t earn anything. All we know is that people with university degrees earn more than do people without a university degree.

Posted from my mobile device

B

tinbq

Manager

Joined: 04 Nov 2016

Posts: 122

Own Kudos [?]: 21 [0]

Given Kudos: 599

Location: Viet Nam

Schools: Cornell '26 (WL)

GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35

GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V38

GPA: 3.12

Send PM

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

29 May 2021, 00:20

GMATNinja wrote:

RK007 wrote:

gmatt1476 wrote:

Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation. Nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, but those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines. So the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the columnist's argument?

A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees.

D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.

E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

CR05941.01

Official Explanation

Argument Evaluation

Which one of the five answer options provides the information that most strengthens the columnist's argument?

The columnist's reasoning seeks to explain why Metro City has higher per capita earnings than any city of comparable size. It attributes this to the fact that Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than do these other comparable cities.

Suppose the residents with university degrees outside the humanities had a higher per capita income than such residents in the comparable cities nationwide. If that were the case, then that would indicate that the higher per capita income of such residents is sufficient to explain Metro City's divergence in per capita income from the comparable cities.

That is, if we have information to indicate that is NOT the case, the case for the explanation offered—a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees—is strengthened.

A. This weakens the columnist's explanation by offering a potential alternative explanation: the higher per capita incomes of those with humanities degrees in Metro City might explain the higher per capita income of Metro City residents.

B. This does not lend additional support to the columnist's explanation. It suggests other possible explanations: first, the holders of degrees outside of humanities may have extraordinarily high incomes even for such graduates nationwide; second, Metro City may be unusual in having workers without university degrees who have an unusually high per capita income; third, both of these groups may have unusually high per capita incomes.

C. This does not lend additional support to the columnist's explanation. However, it is well-supported by the information offered in support of the argument's conclusion: university graduates generally earn more than others, and among university graduates, humanities graduates earn less than others.

D. Correct. As explained above, this information, by eliminating an alternative explanation to that offered in the argument's conclusion, strengthens the argument.

E. This information is consistent with the information provided in support of the argument's conclusion. It does not, however, provide additional support for the argument's conclusion. This information is consistent with alternative explanations for the higher per capita income of Metro City's residents. That is, for example, that the holders of non-humanities degrees, or those with no degrees at all, have particularly high per capita income.

The correct answer is D.

I have a query here. Isn't E just restating the conclusion? If yes, then can we just straight away reject such choices in exam? If no, then what am I missing? What's the difference? I really didn't comprehend the Official explanation though.
Thanks in advance

Here's what the passage tells us:

Quote:

Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation.

Here's what choice (E) tells us:

Quote:

E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

These are the not equivalent statements. The passage describes the proportion of residents with humanities degrees, while Choice (E) describes the proportion of university graduates (a subset of residents) with humanities degrees. While both choices ultimately refer to the same group of people (university graduates in MC with humanities degrees), they are measuring this group as a proportion of different demographics (all residents vs. all university graduate residents).

Even so, the information in choice (E) does not strengthen the columnist's argument. (E) simply reveals that — like the % of humanities degree holders out of all residents — the % of humanities degree holders out of all graduates is low when compared to cities of similar size.

This doesn't give us any additional reasons to believe that Metro City's low proportion of residents with humanities degrees is the main reason that Metro City, has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size.

All that said, if you're looking for a strategy takeaway here, it's NOT to find a rule of thumb that helps you reject categories of answer choices. The takeaway here is that it's incredibly important to read precisely, then eliminate individual answer choices based on a clear understanding of what the question asked and what the choice says.

I hope this helps!

Hi GMATNinja,

I think for option D to be correct, it needs a supporting assumption that percentage of residents with university degrees in Metro city is not significant higher than the corresponding figure in other city nationwide. (otherwise, the significant more percentage of residents with university degrees outside humanity in Metro City can help explain the city's higher income per capita, as compared with other city).
So Can a correct choice for strengthening questions be supported by other (unstated) assumption?

In addition, as in D, if we have another assumption, let take one (or both) possible alternate explanation(s) from OG for example, that the holders of degrees outside of humanities may have extraordinarily high incomes even for such graduates nationwide, can option B also a strengthener? If yes, then how can we select the best choice between B and D?

Sorry if my example is not precise, but I hope you get the idea that I want to ask here. Thank you so much.
Regards,

B

celan

Intern

Joined: 12 Sep 2017

Posts: 28

Own Kudos [?]: 10 [0]

Given Kudos: 16

Location: Korea, Republic of

Schools: Columbia CBS '24

GMAT 1: 720 Q50 V37

GPA: 3.6

Send PM

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

18 Jun 2021, 14:49

Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation. Nationwide, university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, but those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines. So the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.

P : Metro City has lower % of humanities degrees
P : university graduates in other disciplines > university graduates with humanities degrees > others who don't have degrees
A : Other possible factors that may affect income level are the same among cities.
C : Metro City's higher income <- low percentage of residents with humanities degrees.

Which of the following, if true, would most strengthen the columnist's argument?

A. Metro City residents with humanities degrees have higher income per capita than do people with humanities degrees in any other city of comparable size in the nation.
-> Not necessary. The conclusion analyzes the income level difference by the percentage of people with humanities degrees. If option A is true, the reason for income level difference may be due to difference in income level among people with humanities degrees, meaning difference did not occur by percentage difference who has or not.

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.
-> If the percentage of residents with degrees is lower in Metro City, people in other categories must have higher income levels than that of other cities. The other two categories are people with humanities degrees and people with degrees in other disciplines. No information is given to determine which category has made difference in income level.

C. Nationwide, university graduates without humanities degrees typically earn more than do individuals without university degrees.
-> Irrelevant. This information is given as a premise and does not support the conclusion.

D. Metro City residents with degrees outside the humanities have per capita income no higher than the per capita income of such residents of other cities of comparable size in the nation.
-> Correct. Option D eliminates other possible explanation for income level difference.

E. In Metro City, a lower proportion of university graduates have humanities degrees than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.
-> This information is consistent with the information provided to support the conclusion. However, no additional value is added to strengthen the conclusion. If the main difference in income level has occurred in other categories, the conclusion does not stand.

L

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Posts: 6921

Own Kudos [?]: 63668 [2]

Given Kudos: 1774

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51

GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170

Send PM

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

23 Jun 2021, 20:19

1

Kudos

1

Bookmarks

Expert Reply

tinbq wrote:

Hi GMATNinja,

I think for option D to be correct, it needs a supporting assumption that percentage of residents with university degrees in Metro city is not significant higher than the corresponding figure in other city nationwide. (otherwise, the significant more percentage of residents with university degrees outside humanity in Metro City can help explain the city's higher income per capita, as compared with other city).
So Can a correct choice for strengthening questions be supported by other (unstated) assumption?

In addition, as in D, if we have another assumption, let take one (or both) possible alternate explanation(s) from OG for example, that the holders of degrees outside of humanities may have extraordinarily high incomes even for such graduates nationwide, can option B also a strengthener? If yes, then how can we select the best choice between B and D?

Sorry if my example is not precise, but I hope you get the idea that I want to ask here. Thank you so much.
Regards,

The key to understanding how (D) is the best answer choice is that the question merely asks for the option that most strengthens the columnist’s argument. It doesn’t ask for an answer choice that, by itself, proves the columnist’s argument, so it’s possible that there are additional assumptions needed for the columnist’s argument to be true.

Now, here’s (B):

Quote:

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

(B) indicates that the higher than average income in Metro City is not the result of more residents having university degrees. But that doesn’t mean that the main reason for the higher income is the city’s low percentage of residents with humanities degrees. So, it simply doesn’t strengthen the columnist’s argument. For that reason, we can eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!

B

tinbq

Manager

Joined: 04 Nov 2016

Posts: 122

Own Kudos [?]: 21 [0]

Given Kudos: 599

Location: Viet Nam

Schools: Cornell '26 (WL)

GMAT 1: 710 Q50 V35

GMAT 2: 720 Q49 V38

GPA: 3.12

Send PM

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

24 Jun 2021, 03:32

GMATNinja wrote:

tinbq wrote:

Hi GMATNinja,

I think for option D to be correct, it needs a supporting assumption that percentage of residents with university degrees in Metro city is not significant higher than the corresponding figure in other city nationwide. (otherwise, the significant more percentage of residents with university degrees outside humanity in Metro City can help explain the city's higher income per capita, as compared with other city).
So Can a correct choice for strengthening questions be supported by other (unstated) assumption?

In addition, as in D, if we have another assumption, let take one (or both) possible alternate explanation(s) from OG for example, that the holders of degrees outside of humanities may have extraordinarily high incomes even for such graduates nationwide, can option B also a strengthener? If yes, then how can we select the best choice between B and D?

Sorry if my example is not precise, but I hope you get the idea that I want to ask here. Thank you so much.
Regards,

The key to understanding how (D) is the best answer choice is that the question merely asks for the option that most strengthens the columnist’s argument. It doesn’t ask for an answer choice that, by itself, proves the columnist’s argument, so it’s possible that there are additional assumptions needed for the columnist’s argument to be true.

Now, here’s (B):

Quote:

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

(B) indicates that the higher than average income in Metro City is not the result of more residents having university degrees. But that doesn’t mean that the main reason for the higher income is the city’s low percentage of residents with humanities degrees. So, it simply doesn’t strengthen the columnist’s argument. For that reason, we can eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!

Hi GMATNinja,

Thank you for your response. I get the idea that a strengthener can be based on other assumption(s).

However, as this question really confuses me and my rightness in reasoning, please help me with below:

i) Can we strengthen the argument by eliminate other possible explanation?

ii) For this question in particular, I can see that the conclusion (the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees) is strengthened if we have given premises (1. Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation, 2. university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, and 3. those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines) and:

option (B): The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

and two other assumptions:
• the holders of degrees outside of humanities may have extraordinarily high incomes even for such graduates nationwide
• Metro City may be unusual in having workers without university degrees who have an unusually high per capita income

So if we didn’t have (D), would (B) be correct? And in case we have D as well, why D is preferred?

Thank you so much.
Tin

L

GMATNinja

GMAT Club Verbal Expert

Joined: 13 Aug 2009

Status: GMAT/GRE/LSAT tutors

Posts: 6921

Own Kudos [?]: 63668 [4]

Given Kudos: 1774

Location: United States (CO)

GMAT 1: 780 Q51 V46

GMAT 2: 800 Q51 V51

GRE 1: Q170 V170

GRE 2: Q170 V170

Send PM

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

11 Jul 2021, 07:57

3

Kudos

1

Bookmarks

Expert Reply

tinbq wrote:

GMATNinja wrote:

tinbq wrote:

Hi GMATNinja,

I think for option D to be correct, it needs a supporting assumption that percentage of residents with university degrees in Metro city is not significant higher than the corresponding figure in other city nationwide. (otherwise, the significant more percentage of residents with university degrees outside humanity in Metro City can help explain the city's higher income per capita, as compared with other city).
So Can a correct choice for strengthening questions be supported by other (unstated) assumption?

In addition, as in D, if we have another assumption, let take one (or both) possible alternate explanation(s) from OG for example, that the holders of degrees outside of humanities may have extraordinarily high incomes even for such graduates nationwide, can option B also a strengthener? If yes, then how can we select the best choice between B and D?

Sorry if my example is not precise, but I hope you get the idea that I want to ask here. Thank you so much.
Regards,

The key to understanding how (D) is the best answer choice is that the question merely asks for the option that most strengthens the columnist’s argument. It doesn’t ask for an answer choice that, by itself, proves the columnist’s argument, so it’s possible that there are additional assumptions needed for the columnist’s argument to be true.

Now, here’s (B):

Quote:

B. The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

(B) indicates that the higher than average income in Metro City is not the result of more residents having university degrees. But that doesn’t mean that the main reason for the higher income is the city’s low percentage of residents with humanities degrees. So, it simply doesn’t strengthen the columnist’s argument. For that reason, we can eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!

Hi GMATNinja,

Thank you for your response. I get the idea that a strengthener can be based on other assumption(s).

However, as this question really confuses me and my rightness in reasoning, please help me with below:

i) Can we strengthen the argument by eliminate other possible explanation?

ii) For this question in particular, I can see that the conclusion (the main reason Metro City has higher income per capita than any other city of comparable size in our nation must be its low percentage of residents with humanities degrees) is strengthened if we have given premises (1. Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanities degrees than any other city of comparable size in our nation, 2. university graduates generally earn more than people who are not university graduates, and 3. those with humanities degrees typically earn less than do graduates with degrees in other disciplines) and:

option (B): The percentage of residents with university degrees is lower in Metro City than in any other city of comparable size in the nation.

and two other assumptions:
• the holders of degrees outside of humanities may have extraordinarily high incomes even for such graduates nationwide
• Metro City may be unusual in having workers without university degrees who have an unusually high per capita income

So if we didn’t have (D), would (B) be correct? And in case we have D as well, why D is preferred?

Thank you so much.
Tin

Yes, you can certainly strengthen an author's claim by ruling out alternative explanations. (D) does just that: it tells us that non-humanities graduates don't earn a ton of money. This strengthens the author's argument that the high per capita income is caused by the low percentage of residents with humanities degrees, because it nicely eliminates another potential cause of the high per capita income.

(B) doesn't quite accomplish the same thing, because depending on the exact number involved it can either strengthen or weaken the author's claim.

Consider this possibility: Metro City's high income could be caused by a high overall proportion of graduates when compared with other cities. Because we know that the proportion of non-humanities grads is low, a large chunk of the overall grads must be non-humanities grads. For example:

Metro City

Other Comparable Cities

In this case, MC's high income is NOT caused by the low proportion of humanities grads, as the author claims, but by the HIGH proportion of non-humanities grads. (B) eliminates this possibility, and thus strengthens the author's argument.

On the other hand, consider this possibility: MC's overall proportion of grads is very low, which is compatible with the information in (B). But somehow, the overall income is still high -- where the heck is the high income coming from? For example:

Metro City

Other Comparable Cities

The impact of MC having a low proportion of humanities grads would be relatively small. Instead, the finger is now pointed at the non-graduates: they now make up a much larger proportion of the population, so perhaps they are somehow earning a ton of money in MC. Or maybe the high income is driven by the non-humanities grads, who may earn way more money than non-humanities grads in other cities. Either way, if the overall proportion of grads is very low, the author's argument is weakened.

Because (B) can either strengthen or weaken the author's claim, we can eliminate (B).

I hope that helps!

P

LamboWalker

Manager

Joined: 06 Jun 2021

Posts: 176

Own Kudos [?]: 236 [0]

Given Kudos: 243

GMAT 1: 690 Q48 V35

Send PM

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

11 Aug 2021, 03:59

Option E is just a restatement of what is already said in the argument. Based on this info, I think it could be easily eliminated. First three options are just too bad and don't strengthen at all, so D.

gmatclubot

Re: Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit [#permalink]

11 Aug 2021, 03:59

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Columnist: Metro City has a lower percentage of residents with humanit