Gaida and Carcassa are two neighboring cities in Lamoraland

Question

Gaida and Carcassa are two neighboring cities in Lamoraland; the average net worth of residents of Gaida is $100,000, and the average net worth of residents of Carcassa is $120,000. Therefore, if a newlywed couple from Gaida moved to Carcassa before starting a family, their children would be expected to accumulate a greater net worth than if the family had remained in Gaida.

Which of the following, if true, would most seriously weaken the conclusion drawn in the passage?

A. Carcassa is home to a many of the richest Lamoralanders who inherited wealth from their forefathers.
B. The Mayor of Gaida has falsely claimed that statistics published regarding his city are inaccurate.
C. Financial planners do not believe that moving to Carcassa will significantly improve the net worth of the average Gaidan.
D. Twenty percent of all Gaidans can expect to accumulate a net worth of $250,000.
E. Most regions of Carcassa have a minimum wage higher than the average minimum wage in Gaida.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler

Ujjwalk31 · Answer

The passage assumes that moving from Gaida (average net worth $100,000) to Carcassa ($120,000) causes children of a Gaida couple to accumulate higher net worth due to the location's higher average.
​
This reasoning relies on averages reflecting causal factors like opportunities that benefit newcomers' children, but option C directly challenges this by stating financial planners do not expect significant net worth improvement for average Gaidans moving to Carcassa.
​
Other options fail to weaken effectively: 
A suggests inheritance skews Carcassa's average without addressing newcomers.
B questions Gaida stats irrelevantly.
D highlights Gaida high earners but ignores Carcassa comparison.
E notes wages but not net worth causation.

ANS : C

Adit_ · Answer

I think option A is the strongest weakener. This is because it says that inheritance is the reason for the wealth being in favor of the Carcassans and it seriously undermines the fact that moving over there could potentially increase their net wealth.

Option C is vague and a financial opinion is not strong enough just because they believe something will happen. Also the keyword "significantly" is irrelevant, the question is only about whether their wealth will be greater, it need not be significantly greater too.

Dereno · Answer

Gaida and Carcassa are two neighboring cities in Lamoraland. The next few lines mentions about the average net worth. The average net worth of Gaida is $100,000 and that of Carcassa is $120,000. Suppose, a newly wedded couple move from Gaida to carcassa, then the networth of their children are expected to increase.

we need to find an option which weakens the conclusion.

A. Carcassa is home to a many of the richest Lamoralanders who inherited wealth from their forefathers .

This is the correct answer. Because, if all the wealth currently in possession has been inherited by the people from their forefathers in Carcassa, then net worth addition as per the passage is not happening. Just shifting positions doesn’t make the net worth to improve, thus weakens the conclusion.

B. The Mayor of Gaida has falsely claimed that statistics published regarding his city are inaccurate.

This Statement inaccurate can be either way, the value can be low or more. But, does this affect the net worth of the couple and its children. No. Does it prevent the shift or impact the shift, No. Hence, out of scope.

C. Financial planners do not believe that moving to Carcassa will significantly improve the net worth of the average Gaidan.

What the Financial planners believe or assume is completely out of scope. A belief cannot be used as strong evidence for countering an argument. Facts and evidences support more than assumptions, beliefs. Hence, wrong.

D. Twenty percent of all Gaidans can expect to accumulate a net worth of $250,000.

Is the couple among the 20% lot or the 80%. If they expect to accumulate, how can they counter the impact of the shift. This is irrelevant. Hence, Wrong.

E. Most regions of Carcassa have a minimum wage higher than the average minimum wage in Gaida.

Are we taking about minimum wage or net worth. If we are more concerned about the latter, the former is a distraction. Hence, Wrong.

Option A

vasu1104 · Answer

people in G have net worth of 100 K and people in R have net worth of 120K. 
 if newlywed couple move from G to R, their kids will accumulate greater net wroth than had they remained in G. 
 author is assuming that people moving to R will earn more money and that will give their kids that advantage.

A that means the avg net worth has been accumulated because of their forefathers. so if the new couple move there, they wont have that advantage. so it clearly weakens it. 
 B this is completely out of scope. 
 C irrelevant 
 D but we dont know whether the couple is in 20%. so reject. 
 E this also somewhat strengthen it.

Carcass · Answer

Gaida moved to  Carcassa

:lol:

:cool:

Suyash750 · Answer

I have marked A as the strongest weaker for this. The logic is - If the citizens at Carcassa are rich because of the inheritance money, thereby driving the avg to 120k, even if the couple moves, they won't be able to surely be better off. Simply put, we can say that growth opportunities at Carcassa are not great when compared to Gaida.

Navdeep2000 · Answer

From the passage, the conclusion states that just moving from Gaida to Carcassa will most probably enable a couple's children to accumulate greater net worth than if the couple stayed in Gaida only.  
 We are required to weaken this conclusion by spotting an option that states something on the lines that it takes more than just moving places to accumulate greater net worth or anything that gives a reason to doubt the belief that it will meet its expected aim. 
 Let's check the options:

A. Carcassa is home to a many of the richest Lamoralanders who inherited wealth from their forefathers.
 Exactly. The reason that average income of people in Carcassa is higher than those of Gaida is because of the generational wealth. So if you come from a poor or middle class family, moving to that place won't automatically increase your net worth.  Option A.

B. The Mayor of Gaida has falsely claimed that statistics published regarding his city are inaccurate.
 Basically it means that the claims made around the statistics are accurate in real life. If that's true then it actually strengthens the claim that the couple's children would be expected to accumulate a greater net worth. However, we have to look for the weakener. Rejected.

C. Financial planners do not believe that moving to Carcassa will significantly improve the net worth of the average Gaidan. 
 Notice the term here "significantly". It states here that moving to Carcassa won't help in significantly improving the net worth. However, it could still be an increase if not significant in the networth of the average Gaidan having moved to Carcassas. In that case, it will strengthen it. Rejected.

D. Twenty percent of all Gaidans can expect to accumulate a net worth of $250,000. 
 No where does it state that the mentioned 20% Gaidans will include a newlywed couple that moves to Carcassa for an increased net worth. The Gaidans could very well still be residing in Gaida and achieve a greater net worth here only. Rejected.

E. Most regions of Carcassa have a minimum wage higher than the average minimum wage in Gaida. 
 If anything, it states that they will have a higher chance of increasing their net worth, which adds to the strengthen of the argument. However, we need to look for a weakener. Rejected.

ARSENAL017543 · Answer

C says "Moving" to Carcassa will not significantly increase Net worth. However, we are not concerned with the mover's net worth, we are concerned with their children's future net worth.

ExpertsGlobal5 · Answer

Video explanation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPvlS3lAHIc

gaurikhanna17 · Answer

I understand why A is the right answer but still have some doubt with option C : even though it says significantly, i am facing difficulty in ruling out option C, since it says 20% have 250,000 usd then that will mean that 80% will have $87500 as average, which is lower than $100,000, and hence the chnaces of getting better pay are lower with 80% at 87500 
please can some one explain this to me .

egmat · Answer

Hi gaurikhanna17,

Good instinct to push on C rather than just accept it. Let me separate two things that are getting tangled here.

First, the numbers you're using actually belong to D, not C.  The "20% expect $250,000" figure is option D's; C says nothing about it. So the calculation you did - splitting Gaidans into a  20%  group and an  80%  group - is really you testing D, and then borrowing that feeling to keep C alive. Those are two separate choices; let's judge each on its own words.

Why the D-style math doesn't weaken anything:  that split only tells us how wealth is spread out  among Gaidans . But the conclusion is a  comparison  - do the children end up richer by  moving to Carcassa  vs.  staying in Gaida ? Knowing that some Gaidans are rich and some are poorer says nothing about which city produces the better outcome. It never touches the move itself, so it can't weaken (and, as others noted, we don't even know if the couple is in that  20% ).

Now C on its own.  Read the exact words:  "Financial planners  do not believe ..."  That's an  opinion , not evidence about what actually causes higher net worth. A weakener has to hit the argument's real assumption - that  living in Carcassa  is what creates the wealth. A belief, however expert, doesn't establish that. On top of that, C is about  "the average Gaidan,"  while the conclusion is specifically about the couple's  children  - so even the subject doesn't match.

Compare the two versions of C:
-  "Financial planners  believe  moving won't help."  - opinion, does nothing.
-  " Studies show  that newcomers' children in Carcassa end up no wealthier."  - that would be real evidence, and would weaken.

That's the gap: C only gives you a belief, which is why A - showing the high average comes from  inherited  wealth newcomers won't receive - is the one that actually breaks the causal link.

Answer: A

Gaida and Carcassa are two neighboring cities in Lamoraland

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

Gaida and Carcassa are two neighboring cities in Lamoraland

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