Events & Promotions
|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Nov 2007:30 AM PST
-08:30 AM PST
Learn what truly sets the UC Riverside MBA apart and how it helps in your professional growth
Nov 2211:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Do RC/MSR passages scare you? e-GMAT is conducting a masterclass to help you learn – Learn effective reading strategies Tackle difficult RC & MSR with confidence Excel in timed test environment- Nov 23
11:00 AM IST
-01:00 PM IST
Attend this free GMAT Algebra Webinar and learn how to master the most challenging Inequalities and Absolute Value problems with ease. 
Nov 2510:00 AM EST
-11:00 AM EST
Prefer video-based learning? The Target Test Prep OnDemand course is a one-of-a-kind video masterclass featuring 400 hours of lecture-style teaching by Scott Woodbury-Stewart, founder of Target Test Prep and one of the most accomplished GMAT instructors.
23 Feb 2024, 09:25
Kudos
Bookmarks
PReciSioN - think about two things. What does "more difficulty during a recession" in the conclusion imply? Please translate this in numbers.
Second - Is the difficulty in getting a job when "the student-to-teacher ratio is low" same as "difficulty in" getting a job during recession?
Think about the above two independently.
Second - Is the difficulty in getting a job when "the student-to-teacher ratio is low" same as "difficulty in" getting a job during recession?
Think about the above two independently.
23 Feb 2024, 09:51
Kudos
Bookmarks
egmat
egmat "More difficulty during a recession" in numbers would mean that if during non-recession times the usual number of teachers hired or vacancies for teachers was X than during recession this number is less than X. Lesser vacancies would translate to more difficulty for applicant teachers.
Now lets think of 2 different situations.
Situation-1: The Student-to-Teacher ratio does not approach close to the legal limit (is sufficiently below the limit) during recession even after an increase in students causes the ratio to increase as compared to non-recession times. (This can happen if the S/T ratio was quite low earlier, if the limit is very high or if the student increase was not sufficient to make the S/T ratio approach the limit)
Effect - In this situation, there is no external legal compulsion on schools to hire more teachers. They can reduce the number of teachers they would have hired (X) as a response to the recession, as would many other businesses as is stated in the argument. Reasons behind this could be lesser available funds/budget, need for budget in other areas etc.)
Situation-2: The Student-to-Teacher ratio approaches close to the legal limit during recession times. (This can happen if the S/T ratio was close to the legal limit in non-recession times, or if the student increase was significant enough to bring it close to or above the limit).
Effect - In this situation, there is now an external legal compulsion on schools to hire more teachers. This external legal compulsion would counter-act the usual effects of recession which would be felt on other jobs and would NOT make getting teaching jobs more difficult by keeping the vacancies/ number of teachers to be hired (X) the same or higher. This is what the author of the argument argues will happen. And this is true, assuming that the applicants do not increase significantly which is why B is indeed the correct answer.
C is not the correct answer since, knowing the current levels of S/T ratio would not help us in evaluating if the ratio would approach or increase above the legal limit during recession times. To know this we need more information about the legal limit, the student increase etc.
We can essentially think of it like this. What reasoning is used by the argument to claim that getting a teaching job won't be made more difficult in recession though other jobs will? The reasoning is based on the existence of a legal limit acting as a compulsion. But what if this legal limit does NOT come into play at all? Then the premises used by the argument do NOT support the conclusion.
28 Apr 2024, 04:15
Kudos
Bookmarks
gmatsaga
Actually I think a Yes answer for B is weaken the argument. Because the argument said that getting a job in govenrment fund is easy even when recession happens. But if the number of teacher increase, the competion between teacher applicants will incresea too => Getting a job is not easy.
On the other hand, a No answer of B says that, there will be few applicants want to become teacher in these school, so the opportunity to get a job will be easier. So No is strengthen the argument.
