12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 10: Legislator: Although

Question

12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition with Lots of Fun

Legislator: Although the proposed bill to increase the minimum wage polls well with prospective voters, they are overlooking the potential negative impacts it could likely have on the national economy. In particular, the extra costs it would impose on businesses may lead some corporations to move operations overseas. Therefore, I implore my colleagues to look beyond their own electoral prospects and vote against this bill.

Which of the following, if true, would most justify the legislator’s position?

A. The next general election is only a few months away.

B. Low wages are not driving talented workers to seek employment abroad.

C. There are non-economic reasons that voters believe the minimum wage increase is warranted.

D. Many legislators are term-limited and not eligible for reelection.

E. The popularity of a bill is not the sole reason to consider it viable.

https://gmatclub.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/12-days.jpg

V33-11

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

GMAT CLUB Official Explanation

Choice A: No. The timing of the next election has no impact on the legislator’s argument.

Choice B: Yes.  If  low wages are not driving talented workers to seek employment abroad , then the legislator’s argument is more viable since an economic reason to vote for the bill has been eliminated.

Choice C: No. This is a reversal, since the non-economic reasons may outweigh the legislator’s economic reasoning.

Choice D: No. That  many legislators are term-limited  has no impact on the legislator’s argument.

Choice E: No. That  the popularity of a bill is not the sole reason to consider it viable  has no impact on the legislator’s argument.

The correct answer is choice B.

abuc0112 · Answer

Legislator: Although the proposed bill to increase the minimum wage polls well with prospective voters, they are overlooking the potential negative impacts it could likely have on the national economy. In particular, the extra costs it would impose on businesses may lead some corporations to move operations overseas. Therefore, I implore my colleagues to look beyond their own electoral prospects and vote against this bill.

Which of the following, if true, would most justify the legislator’s position?

The author is saying that the people should vote against the bill to increase the minimum wage because voting for the bill will likely have a negative impact on the economy. But what if the low wage is already having a negative impact and that is why the bill was proposed? The author is assuming that the low wage has no negative impact.

A. The next general election is only a few months away.  not a negative impact

B. Low wages are not driving talented workers to seek employment abroad.  correct if talented people migrated because of low pay, this could impact the economy negatively.

C. There are non-economic reasons that voters believe the minimum wage increase is warranted.  not a negative impact

D. Many legislators are term-limited and not eligible for reelection.  not a negative impact

E. The popularity of a bill is not the sole reason to consider it viable.  not a negative impact

behlmanmeet · Answer

Question Stem:

Legislator: Although the proposed bill to increase the minimum wage polls well with prospective voters, they are overlooking the potential negative impacts it could likely have on the national economy. In particular, the extra costs it would impose on businesses may lead some corporations to move operations overseas. Therefore, I implore my colleagues to look beyond their own electoral prospects and vote against this bill.

Which of the following, if true, would most justify the legislator’s position?

Solution:   The legislator is focused on the negative impacts the bill could have on the national economy and his colleagues according to him overlook this because of favorable polls from prospective voters. Now, what would justify the legislator's position? Anything that ascertains that economic impact or a defense against a weakener to his position. Both solidify or justify his position.
 
A. The next general election is only a few months away.:  If anything, this might say why the legislator's position or his plan would not be taken be effective. This explains why his colleagues might not vote against this bill. If anything this might weaken his position a little.

B. Low wages are not driving talented workers to seek employment abroad.:  Now this is a possible defense against criticism or hole in legislator's position. Thus, this further solidifies his position.

C. There are non-economic reasons that voters believe the minimum wage increase is warranted.:  This will weaken his position. The legislator has only provided negative economic impacts but if the bill is warranted for non-economic reasons, it might be the case that other legislators did not overlook negative economic impact but rather just put more emphasis on the non-economic reasons that voters believe the minimum wage increase is warranted for.

D. Many legislators are term-limited and not eligible for reelection.:  Now, this suggests that many legislators might not be favoring this bill for poll gains. Since they have nothing to gain for. But it does not shed light on legislators' position. If anything this might weaken it little since many legislators might be in favor of the bill for voter gains
 
E. The popularity of a bill is not the sole reason to consider it viable.:  Okay but how does this affect the legislator's position? This might in some sense be stating that the other legislators are considering other reasons than just popularity and this will weaken the legislator's position.

Thus, the answer is B.

Theredpill · Answer

I think the answer should be B.
As per the legislator, the voters should vote against the proposed law because the law will have negative impacts on the national economy. He gives the reason that if the company's shifts their operations overseas (because of higher minimum wage) there will be a loss of jobs in the nation and hence a loss in the nation's income. But the Legislator assumes that people will not be traveling overseas even though the income is the same (as it was before the law) because if they are, they are bringing the nation the same money as it was before. 
Option A- Irrelevant.
Option C- Weakens the Legislator's point of view. 
Option D- This just proves that the legislator is not biased towards any party. But does not justify his position.
Option E- Irrelevant

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.

12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 10: Legislator: Although

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

12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 10: Legislator: Although

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