Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the

Question

Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the percentage of people who are looking for work but are unable to find it has dropped from 7% to 5% of the total number of people either working or looking for work. These statistics show that it is clear that my administration’s business-friendly policies have helped reduce the level of unemployment among those willing to work.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the politician’s argument relies?

A. The previous administration’s worker re-education program had no significant effect on the unemployment rate.
B. Less than 2% of the population that were working or willing to work at the start of the politician’s term have stopped working or looking for work.
C. None of the new jobs created during the politician’s term went to those who already had jobs.
D. Most of those looking for employment found jobs in the field they were trained in.
E. The politician’s business-friendly policies have had a direct affect on the ability of firms to hire more workers 
 The answer given is B.I don't understand why....For example,say there are 100 ppl in the workforce(93 working,7 ppl willing to work but jobless)....The argument says this 7% unemployment rate goes down to 5%...There are many possible cases now....

Case 1:Nobody withdraws from the workforce
the split becomes (95 working,5 jobless) and this favor's the politician's stance.

Case 2:People withdraw from the workforce...here again we have 2 sub cases.
 2.1. people who were working withdraw from the workforce.
 In this case, the workforce (denominator)shrinks whereas the number of jobless people remains 
 unaffected....In such a case the unemployment rate definitely increases

2.2.Jobless people withdraw.
 This is the case in question for this problem.In this case ,both the numerator and denominator decrease...I 
 am not very sure how a figure of 2% is arrived at whether the net effect of such a situation is always a 
 resultant decrease.In this case say 1 jobless person withdraws,we are left with 99 in the denominator and 
 5 (5% of 99 approx) in the numerator.This means there are 5 unemployed people and 94 employed 
 people.This is a desirable scenario compared to a (93,7) figure

Now, consider 3 jobless people withdrawing.....Now we have 97 people in the dnominator (5 unemployed,92 
 employed ...is this desirable or not??I am not sure....

Any help is welcome..

Regards,
Vignesh

pqhai · Accepted Answer

Hi aceacharya

I'm glad to help.

Before answer you questions, please make sure you understand the fact correctly:

Fact: The percentage of people who are looking for work but are unable to find it has dropped from 7% to 5% of the total number of people either working or looking for work.
==> The formula is: 
  The ratio = Number of people are unable to find job/   
 
 The decrease from 7% to 5% only makes sense  if  The denominator     increases or does not change . 
If the denominator decreases as well, The percentage decrease does not make any point.

E) The politician’s business-friendly policies have had a direct affect on the ability of firms to hire more workers
 The firms hire more people ==> Number of people get hired increase. But what happens if many people looking for job STOP finding job or many people who are working QUIT their job ==> The denominator will decrease. Clearly, the reduction to 5% does not make any sense ==> E cannot be the assumption.

B) Less than 2% of the population that were working or willing to work at the start of the politician’s term have stopped working or looking for work. 
B means  the denominator DOES NOT DECREASE too much  to make the percentage reduction be nonsensical.

You say “the % of employed has improved but the actual number of people employed might not have increased”  is not correct . If the denominator decreases less than 2%, the number of people get hired  must increase .

I will borrow your example:
There are 1000 people (working + looking job).
 Before:  7% are unable to find job ==> number of people employed = 1000 – 70 = 930
 After:  5% are unable to find job + 1.5% (less than 2%) stop looking for job ==> number of people employed = 1000 – 50 – 15 = 935

Hence, B is correct.

Hope it helps.

amit2k9 · Answer

There is a reasoning gap for the statistics mentioned in the argument here.Hence a supporter answer choice is needed.

Between A and B.

A gives a defender answer choice warding off external effect. POE.

B Out of 100 people looking for work, 7 not working old
out of 100 people looking for work, 5 not working new

negating - more than 2% people have stopped looking for work.

out of 97 people looking for work, 5 not working possible for the new condition.

This crashes the conclusion that the schemes have brought down the unemployment index.

Hence B here.

nashy2098 · Answer

I think the key to this question is the interpretation that all the percentages involved are with respect to the first year.....Pl correct me if I am wrong...
Regards,
Vignesh

fluke · Answer

This so called CR question is more difficult that the most difficult word problem on percentages.

aceacharya · Answer

Sorry for reopening this old argument. But whats wrong with E B seems to indicate that less than 2% for example 19 out of a 1000 people have dropped out of the work force and therefor the % of employed has improved but the actual number of people employed might not have increased. So for the politician to claim credit for this improvement the actual numbers employed should have increased. Wouldnt option E be the assumption that the politician would make to supplement his claim Or is it that GMAT considers all politicians to be statistic manipulators :evil:

Sukant2010 · Answer

Hi,
I didnt exactly get what you mean by saying that A gives a defender answer choice warding off external effect.
Like you negated option B, if we negate option A, we have that The previous administration's worker reeducation program had a significant effect on the unemployment rate. It means if The previous administration's worker reeducation program have had a significant effect, then this administration's business friendly policies have not done anything to reduce the unemployment rate. This crashes the conclusion.
Though, I agree on what you have done by negating option B, but since we are talking about an assumption, we need a building block between the conclusion and the premise. The conclusion here talks about the 'ROLE OF BUSINESS FRIENDLY POLICIES IN REDUCING UNEMPLOYMENT' while the premise is the stats. We need an answer actually linking the two. On negating option B we can say that the stats are disturbed and thus, unemployment might not have reduced, but here we in no way talk about the way i.e. THE BUSINESS POLICIES OF THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION' of reducing the unemployment.
I think if the question asked us to strengthen the conclusion, then option B could have been the answer as then on negating the option, the premise was attacked. But here, since we are asked about the assumption, we cannot just mark this answer as it disturbed the stats. Rather, we need an option to link the conclusion and premise.
IMO, the answer should be A.
I hope you get what I am trying to say.
I would definitely like some expert to comment on it. @Magoosh

junkostem · Answer

Nice interpretation.

I always find that setting up a ratio for these percentage-type CR problems is a great way to find the answer.

In this particular case, Choice B is the only one that draws a bridge between the premise and conclusion --- directly affecting "the demonator in the equation".

ahuan077 · Answer

I don't think the answer provided is the correct answer.

What the politician actually says is : his policies reduced "the level of unemployment among those willing to work."

whether there were people dropped out of workforce is absolutely not relevant.

ahamd · Answer

I'm still not able to understand why is option C wrong.Will be a great help if my get a clarification for the same

KarishmaB · Answer

Among people willing to work (working or looking for work) -

7% were unemployed before this politician.
5% are unemployed now.

Claim of politician: We have reduced level of unemployment.

So if 100 people were willing to work and 93 were working while 7 were looking for work, now only 5 are looking for work. The politician is claiming that he provided jobs to 2 people.

But what if these 2 people just dropped out of willing to work category? What if of those 7, 2 stopped looking for work and dropped out. So now only 5 out of 98 are looking for work (approximately 5%). Then the politician's claim breaks. So the politician's argument relies on that fact that less than 2% have dropped out. Only then he can claim that employment was provided.

A. The previous administration’s worker re-education program had no significant effect on the unemployment rate.
 
The politician is claiming about his admin reducing unemployment rate. He is not assuming anything about the previous admin’s re-education program. He doesn't even mention it. Whether it had an impact or not doesn't matter. The politician could still have had an impact.

B. Less than 2% of the population that were working or willing to work at the start of the politician’s term have stopped working or looking for work.
 
As discussed above, this is correct.

C. None of the new jobs created during the politician’s term went to those who already had jobs.

Who took which job is irrelevant. We are talking about the overall levels of unemployment. If some people who were already working took some new jobs then their old jobs went to some other people. Or if some jobs became obsolete, new jobs were created in their place. The point is the overall impact only. 7% people were unemployed before and now only 5% are unemployed.

D. Most of those looking for employment found jobs in the field they were trained in.

Irrelevant. The fields in which people found jobs is out of scope.

E. The politician’s business-friendly policies have had a direct affect on the ability of firms to hire more workers

The politician is not assuming a direct affect on the ability of firms. The affect could be indirect too. It doesn't matter. The politician is claiming that the business-friendly policies have helped.

Answer (B)

ahamd · Answer

Thanks @karishmaB.Your explanation is indeed helpful

Muskangupta0223 · Answer

How is option B as it is proving the conclusion that the politician's reign has increased jobs? If the option said, " Less than 2% of the population that were working or willing to work at the start of the politician’s term have NOT stopped working or looking for work." then this will make it an acceptable assumption?

As it is The negation of the Option B is making it an assumption. Is this acceptable for Assumption questions?

Can experts please help me understand this? GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo KarishmaB. Other explanations also welcome

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Politician: Since my administration has entered office, the

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards