V33-11

Question

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.

Bunuel · Answer

Official Solution:

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.

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 , (meaning people are not leaving the country because they are being paid enough, meaning they are actually getting reasonable pay and they do not need an increase to the minimum wage), then the legislator’s argument to strike down the bill 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.

Answer: B

arya251294 · Answer

Hi, Thanks for the answer

But I have a doubt - Option B tells us that talented workers are going abroad, but even if the talented workers move abroad that does not mean that corporations will also move their operations overseas. The only reason the legislator wants his colleagues to oppose the bill is to prevent corporations from going overseas right? Is my understanding correct?

sldisek783 · Answer

The explanation isn't thorough enough. I would appreciate if you can elaborate.  Bunuel

KushagraKirtiman · Answer

Hi Banuel,
I think correct answer is wrong. The question doesnt say anything about worker moving abroad, it dosen't even say anything about the workers. The passage does talk about corporations moving abroad but that dosent mean that workers will also move abroad if the minimum wage bill is not passed. Factors like unemployment can be a reason

bb · Answer

Hi. it is a tricky question. You can see more explanations for it here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/12-days-of-c ... ml?kudos=1 The argument is that increasing wages will lead some companies to shift abroad. Answer choice B reverses the perspective and says that the workers are not protesting the current wages, so there is no reason to raise them. Currently workers are not moving abroad themselves due to low wages and so they need to raise wages to prevent that from happening. It appears workers are content with the current wages. Moving abroad has nothing to do with companies moving abroad in this case.

Dbrunik · Answer

I think this is a  high-quality  question and I agree with explanation.

ioannispar · Answer

I think this is a  poor-quality  question and I don't agree with the explanation. Wages are irrelevant to the conclusion. The conclusion concerns the extra costs imposed on businesses that would lead them to move abroad.

bb · Answer

Yes, you have correctly identified the conclusion. 
However, the the point about wages is addressing one of the the assumptions (that workers are not making enough money and need an increase), weakening the argument for wage increase and strengthening the argument to strike down the law.

P.S. I also think it is fairly unexpected turn of the question. Most will expect it to somehow be related to the conclusion.

V33-11

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