12 Days of Christmas GMAT Competition - Day 3: Which of the following

Correct Answer: A

In this CR question we are looking for an option which completes the logic mentioned in the passage.

Let's start with the elimination process,

(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive Nurland is properous as per passage hence, this conclusion cannot be true. Eliminate this option choice.

(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year. This option brings in new information related to standard of living. Do not extrapolate and eliminate the option.


(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000. Same as C, new information, eliminate.


(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland

There is no discussion regarding cutting expenditure to support the scheme, eliminate the choice.

Now look at A.

(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year

This looks like a viable option to connect the reason why assistant program is needed, although people are right still this amendment will help certain group of people.

IC : Some critics have suggested that the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland are not necessary. They note that the average income in Nurland is $55,000

While they are correct that the kind of assistance provided by the proposed changes is needed only if a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year , it is still possible that the changes are necessary : we need to find reason for latter part

(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year
there is no information provided of population of Nurland whose salary is below $10,000 , what if such people need more assistance to get out of poverty than ones who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year

(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive there is no info provided on this that how population that earns less than $20,000 a year...


(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year effectively yes this is valid as with this provision , population earning less than $ 20,000 would have some better , but there is no substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year whose info is provided


(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000
the median income is > avg income meaning ; less people are earning avg amount $ 55,000 and with provisions , this population can expect some benefits and this can increase avg income as well..

(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland
no reasoning of how funding would be provided

OPTION D is correct

(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year-Correct
(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive-nothing related to why changes were required,out
(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year-not giving any reason ,out
(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000, ----not giving any reason why changes were required
(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland--- out of scope

oa : a

A: If the old program, does not help people who earn between 10k and 20k dollars, and the new program is needed only if a substantial portion of population earns below 20k dollars, then it will be beneficial for the people who are not getting benefits under the current program. This could make the new changes necessary.

B: This does not make the new changes necessary.

C: While, it's a good thing that people earning under 20k will start having a better standard of living, this in itself does not make the changes necessary.

D: The difference between the mean and the median income tells me that a significant amount of people earn below or around 55k. This again does not make the changes necessary.

E: Whether it is easy or difficult to find money is not relevant in determining whether the changes are necessary.

Some critics have suggested that the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland are not necessary. They note that the average income in Nurland is $55,000—well above poverty level and among the highest in the world. While they are correct that the kind of assistance provided by the proposed changes is needed only if a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year, it is still possible that the changes are necessary, since ________________.

(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year
Incorrect. There is no information on how many people are earning between $10k-$20k

(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive
Incorrect. This doesn't explain why the changes to the current social assistance program are necessary

(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year
Incorrect. This doesn't explain why the changes to the current social assistance program are necessary

(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000
Correct. This means that a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year because the average income is $55k. This would mean that the changes to the social assistance program are necessary

(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland
Incorrect. Here we need to argue why the changes are necessary.

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

Some critics have suggested that the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland are not necessary. They note that the average income in Nurland is $55,000—well above poverty level and among the highest in the world. While they are correct that the kind of assistance provided by the proposed changes is needed only if a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year, it is still possible that the changes are necessary, since ________________.

Here we need to find a reason to prove why there exists a POSSIBILITY (and not CERTAINITY) that the proposed changes are necessary.

(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year
It does not hint in any whether people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year form a if a substantial portion of the population so that the changes be implemented. INCORRECT!!

(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive
If many people in the country rely on current social assistance program, then there is a POSSIBILITY that in this group a significant portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year. Hence, it is still possible that the changes are necessary. CONTENDER!!

(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year
This choice is IRRELEVANT!! The effects of the the proposed changes is not the concern of the author.

(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000
This choice is IRRELEVANT!! The median annual income is not the concern of the author.


(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland

This choice is IRRELEVANT!! The funding for the proposed social assistance program is not the concern of the author.

Answer: Option B

Only C fits the given paragraph and completes the meaning.

Critics: we don't need changes to existing social assistance program because average income is good.
Argument: While that is true, it is still needed because:

(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year
- if that is the case, the program is not helping the people it is supposed to help (below $20k income). changes will be needed.

(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive
- that just tells us that the current program is helping, nothing about how new changes might help

(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year
- significantly raising standard of living may not be a goal

(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000
- tells nothing about why new changes will be required

(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland
- does not matter how it is funded, question remains whether it should be funded in the first place at all - why is it required?

Answer: A

Note: Attempted this as a part of the Christmas challenge (answers not revealed yet). Let me know if there is an error.

IMO B as many people rely on Social assistance program to survive and it can be some what corelated to the passage statement saying that proposed changes is needed only if a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year.

We are looking for a strengthener for this type of question. While the critics argue by providing the evidence of average income of the state, the high earning citizens can well compensate for the low income earning citizens. So there may be handful of citiens who will find this useful. We need to look for a statement that touches this.

(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year. Looks good

(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive Not relevant

(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year. Yeah this makes sense

(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000 No

(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland No

Between A & C, C is the best choice as it directly talks about the impact it will have.
Ans C

Some critics have suggested that the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland are not necessary. They note that the average income in Nurland is $55,000—well above poverty level and among the highest in the world. While they are correct that the kind of assistance provided by the proposed changes is needed only if a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year, it is still possible that the changes are necessary, since ________________.

(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year --> not covering the point
(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive --> right choice
(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year --> not the right choice ( rasing the living standard is not point make the changes necessary)
(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000 --> not the right choice ( but still can have community need assistance)
(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland -- out of scope

A) This choice does not explain why such a change would be necessary.
B) Maybe. Keep
C) Explains an effect of the proposed change, but not why such a change would be necessary
D) Keep.
E) Explains how the program might be funded, not why such a change is necessary.

D) Is a much stronger contender. From D, we know that the median income is over 85k, but the avg is 55k. This implies that there is a large number of the pop. earning much lower than 55k. The passage states that if enough people are below 20k inclme, the changes might be necessary. D best fills the gap.

Elim D.

Posted from my mobile device

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

Some critics have suggested that the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland are not necessary. They note that the average income in Nurland is $55,000—well above poverty level and among the highest in the world. While they are correct that the kind of assistance provided by the proposed changes is needed only if a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year, it is still possible that the changes are necessary, since ________________.


The statement provides reason for changes in social assistance program since current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year.
Correct


The statement does not provide reason for changes in the social assistance program.
Incorrect


A provides stronger reasons for proposed changes in the social assistance program.
Incorrect


The statement does not provide reason for necessity of the proposed social assistance program
Incorrect


The argument is not concerned with the funding of the proposed social assistance program but is concerned with its necessity.
Incorrect


IMO A

Some critics have suggested that the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland are not necessary. They note that the average income in Nurland is $55,000—well above poverty level and among the highest in the world. While they are correct that the kind of assistance provided by the proposed changes is needed only if a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year, it is still possible that the changes are necessary, since ________________.

According to the argument critics, the average income for Nurland is higher hence all the people of Nurland does not need assistance. But the argument is still missing that taking average income misses out those people in Nurland who are below the poverty level, and who may need assistance. In order to fill the gap, then we need to know if there is already any assistance for people who earn below $20,000.


(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year
Though this option does not convey about assistance for jobless people or people whose income level below $10000, it still covers the scenario that there are people who earns between $10k and $20K(below poverty level) who may need assistance that the current program does not cover. This is valid and logically completes the argument why assistance program is necessary, so keep

(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive
Out of scope. Argument is about whether the changes to assistance program is necessary, and not about people benefiting from the current program. Eliminate

(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year
Out of scope. Argument is about whether the changes to assistance program is necessary, and not about people benefiting from the current program. Eliminate

(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000
Median can be high, but what about the range of the income, and how many are below $20K. Does not support the argument, and hence eliminate.

(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland
Out of scope. Argument is about whether the changes to assistance program is necessary, and not about cutting other expenditures. Eliminate

So the best answer choice is A.

Answer is D
(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year irrelevant
(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive out of scope
(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year not a substantial portion
(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000 the average is 50,000 but the median is well above 85,000. It is possible that a substantial portion of annual income is below 20,000. Thus correct
(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland out of scope

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

Some critics have suggested that the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland are not necessary. They note that the average income in Nurland is $55,000—well above poverty level and among the highest in the world. While they are correct that the kind of assistance provided by the proposed changes is needed only if a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year, it is still possible that the changes are necessary, since ________________.

Interpret:
This fill-in-the-blank question is essentially (most likely) is asking us to infer/deduce/conclude, to find a Must-Be-True answer, or to complete some conditional logic or possibly some syllogism. (More below b/c as it is, a conclusion is given, so we need a premise...an assumption that MBT/that is required.)

Premises:
- Passage is regarding Soc Assistance
- Ave income 55,000 (this does NOT require assistance--"well above poverty level.")
- (if the) Proposed changes needed -----> (then/we know for sure) a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year (only if is a necessary condition and indicates conditional logic.)

Conclusion:
the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland are not necessary

The conclusion is an outcome/an effect/a necessary condition

Predict:
We can get to the conclusion ONLY IF we have a sufficient condition that leads to the necessary condition of the conclusion.
i.e. this problem is essentially functioning as an ASSUMPTION, a problem that is missing a premise and the gap (the missing premise) MUST be filled in to logically end in the conclusion given.
i.e. if _____________ -----> then the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland are not necessary
By staying WITHIN the argument given, I expect the answer will relate to: "only if a substantial portion of the population earns less than $20,000 a year, it is still possible that the changes are necessary"... BUT, this statement will be turned into a SUFFICIENT statement and the necessary will be the conclusion. Furthermore, this statement will be NEGATED because the conclusion is that the social assistance changes are NOT necessary!
i.e., based on the sentence immediately before this... I NEED A CONTRAPOSITIVE!
a substantial portion of the population DOES NOT earns less than $20,000 a year -----> the proposed changes to the social assistance program by the government of Nurland [u]are not necessary
I need to fill in the blank above by indicating that somehow a substantial portion of the population DOES NOT earn less than $20,000 a year. i.e., they DO NOT need assistance!

Now, b/c I have a terrific prediction, I can SKIM the answers (If I don't have a terrific prediction, I must consider every answer carefully and determine what effect it has on the argument and whether it completes the premises allowing the conclusion to be arrived at with valid/appropriate logic.):

D is the correct answer:
(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000(D) median annual income in Nurland is well above $85,000
If the median income is this high, and half of the population earns more than $85,000, then the likelihood that a "substantial portion" makes less than $20,000 is LOWERED dramatically. In fact, the chance that more than 50% (a possible interpretation of a "substantial portion") makes less than $20,000 is ZERO!!
This statement is equal to my prediction that a substantial portion of the population DOES NOT earns less than $20,000 a year

To be sure my answer is correct, I will consider the other answers:
(A) Nurland’s current assistance program does not provide assistance to people who earn between $10,000 and $20,000 a year
--This does not let me conclude that we do NOT need the proposed changes to the assistance program. Perhaps the changes are still needed for those who make less than 10k or more than 20k. NOT A

(B) many people living in Nurland rely on the current social assistance program to survive
--This also does not let me conclude that we do NOT need the proposed changes to the assistance program. In fact, it could be used as a premise to end in a conclusion that the changes are necessary. NOT B

(C) the proposed changes would significantly raise the standard of living of people in Nurland who earn less than $20,000 a year
--Wonderful, but NOT the answer. It does not let me end in the conclusion that the changes are not needed. It is irrelevant as it relates to arriving at the conclusion. NOT C.

(E) the funding for the proposed social assistance program can be raised by cutting other government expenditures in a way that would have minimal impact on the citizens of Nurland.
--Absolutely irrelevant. Whether or not we know how to fund the changes does not help me know whether the changes are needed or not. Simply stated, this is NOT a premise that allows me to arrive at the conclusion given. NOT E.

Answer is c. Option d opposes the 1st argument of author which is that changes proposed are only needed if salary less than 10,000 . Option d is irrelevant . Option b doesn’t explain the exact reason why proposed changes are required even if there are average people earn is above 50000.
Option a explain c option explain that even if people earning less are low but they are not getting full benefits.