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
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Track Your Progress
every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance
Practice Pays
we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:
Struggling with GMAT Verbal as a non-native speaker? Harsh improved his score from 595 to 695 in just 45 days—and scored a 99 %ile in Verbal (V88)! Learn how smart strategy, clarity, and guided prep helped him gain 100 points.
At one point, she believed GMAT wasn’t for her. After scoring 595, self-doubt crept in and she questioned her potential. But instead of quitting, she made the right strategic changes. The result? A remarkable comeback to 695. Check out how Saakshi did it.
The Target Test Prep course represents a quantum leap forward in GMAT preparation, a radical reinterpretation of the way that students should study. Try before you buy with a 5-day, full-access trial of the course for FREE!
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
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
55%
(hard)
Question Stats:
63%
(02:05)
correct 37%
(02:13)
wrong
based on 988
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
People of this country have been finding it difficult to buy their own houses. In the last two decades, the percentage of working population possessing their own homes has gone down. The primary reason is that while the average salary of the working population has increased fivefold in the last two decades, the average cost of a house has shot up ten times. Clearly, the government has not done enough to ensure that the citizens' salaries increase as per the increasing costs of houses.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
A. In the two decades before the last two, the disparity between salary and housing prices was rising too. B. The trend of rental accommodation has increased drastically in the last two decades, adding to the financial benefits of owning a house and thereby, increasing the cost of owning a house. C. Most immigrants who entered the country in the last two decades have purchased their own houses. D. The percentage of working people owning their own houses has declined more rapidly in the last decade than in the decade preceding this last. E. The number of jobs in the country has gone up by fifty percent while the number of houses has gone up by forty percent in the last two decades.
People of this country have been finding it difficult to buy their own houses. In the last two decades, the percentage of working population possessing their own homes has gone down. The primary reason is that while the average salary of the working population has increased fivefold in the last two decades, the average cost of a house has shot up ten times. Clearly, the government has not done enough to ensure that the citizens' salaries increase as per the increasing costs of houses.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
A. In the two decades before the last two, the disparity between salary and housing prices was rising too. B. The trend of rental accommodation has increased drastically in the last two decades, adding to the financial benefits of owning a house and thereby, increasing the cost of owning a house. C. Most immigrants who entered the country in the last two decades have purchased their own houses. D. The percentage of working people owning their own houses has declined more rapidly in the last decade than in the decade preceding this last. E. The number of jobs in the country has gone up by fifty percent while the number of houses has gone up by forty percent in the last two decades.
Option B: Rental Accommodation trend upwards ----> increases financial benifit of owning house ---->increase cost of owning house .... but this donot talk about Govt measures
Option E: job increased 50% ( a clear outcome of +ve govt measures) AND housing increase 40%(could be a +ve govt measures) -- thus govt has done something but still the housing price is going up ( may be due to other factors of economics e.g., supply -demand). Hence the claim about the Govt's action in the argument weakens . Ans Option E
People of this country have been finding it difficult to buy their own houses. In the last two decades, the percentage of working population possessing their own homes has gone down. The primary reason is that while the average salary of the working population has increased fivefold in the last two decades, the average cost of a house has shot up ten times. Clearly, the government has not done enough to ensure that the citizens' salaries increase as per the increasing costs of houses.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
A. In the two decades before the last two, the disparity between salary and housing prices was rising too. B. The trend of rental accommodation has increased drastically in the last two decades, adding to the financial benefits of owning a house and thereby, increasing the cost of owning a house. C. Most immigrants who entered the country in the last two decades have purchased their own houses. D. The percentage of working people owning their own houses has declined more rapidly in the last decade than in the decade preceding this last. E. The number of jobs in the country has gone up by fifty percent while the number of houses has gone up by forty percent in the last two decades.
Would not say it is a great question.. But in the given choices only B fits in.... There is a mismatch between the salary by govt and the coat of owning the house.. B states that the salary given by govt is further compounded by the increased rental, so the disparity shown between the income and expenditure may not hold.
E says jobs have increasedby 50%, while the number of houses have gone up by 40%....( It doesn't mean that increase in jobs has been done by government, they could be private jobs. Moreover, increase in jobs still does not resolve, because argument talks about salary). Thus, I eliminated E.
I chose B because it gives an alternative reason as to why the price of owning a house has increased and clearly reflects that government has no role to play over here.
E says jobs have increasedby 50%, while the number of houses have gone up by 40%....( It doesn't mean that increase in jobs has been done by government, they could be private jobs. Moreover, increase in jobs still does not resolve, because argument talks about salary). Thus, I eliminated E.
I chose B because it gives an alternative reason as to why the price of owning a house has increased and clearly reflects that government has no role to play over here.
Hi, Can you please help me understand this is how I looked at it and came up with E as the answer.
Conclusion is that Govt has not done enough.... to control the housing price rise.
Question asks us to Weaken it that would mean finding an answer that says Govt has done enough. How come B supports that? If only it strengthens it saying Govt did not intervene to control the trend that caused increasing house prices.
E says jobs have increasedby 50%, while the number of houses have gone up by 40%....( It doesn't mean that increase in jobs has been done by government, they could be private jobs. Moreover, increase in jobs still does not resolve, because argument talks about salary). Thus, I eliminated E.
I chose B because it gives an alternative reason as to why the price of owning a house has increased and clearly reflects that government has no role to play over here.
Hi, Can you please help me understand this is how I looked at it and came up with E as the answer.
Conclusion is that Govt has not done enough.... to control the housing price rise.
Question asks us to Weaken it that would mean finding an answer that says Govt has done enough. How come B supports that? If only it strengthens it saying Govt did not intervene to control the trend that caused increasing house prices.
And the conclusion starts with word "Clearly," ie. "Clearly, the government has not done enough "
Option B is giving alternate reason why the cost of house increased. BUT we already know that this increased. It does NOT matter if it increased due to X or due to Y. Does it says that price increased because of Govt. ???? NO.
but in option b rental accomadation is new information which is directly not mentioned in the passae than how can i got the correct i would really appreciate ur insight on this
SonalSinha803
A, C and D can easily be eliminated.
E says jobs have increasedby 50%, while the number of houses have gone up by 40%....( It doesn't mean that increase in jobs has been done by government, they could be private jobs. Moreover, increase in jobs still does not resolve, because argument talks about salary). Thus, I eliminated E.
I chose B because it gives an alternative reason as to why the price of owning a house has increased and clearly reflects that government has no role to play over here.
I eliminated E since it has mentioned about the number of Jobs and the number of houses going up. While the arguement we have to weaken talks about the salary not increasing as per increasing costs of houses
u1983
pushpitkc
People of this country have been finding it difficult to buy their own houses. In the last two decades, the percentage of working population possessing their own homes has gone down. The primary reason is that while the average salary of the working population has increased fivefold in the last two decades, the average cost of a house has shot up ten times. Clearly, the government has not done enough to ensure that the citizens' salaries increase as per the increasing costs of houses.
Which of the following, if true, would most weaken the argument above?
A. In the two decades before the last two, the disparity between salary and housing prices was rising too. B. The trend of rental accommodation has increased drastically in the last two decades, adding to the financial benefits of owning a house and thereby, increasing the cost of owning a house. C. Most immigrants who entered the country in the last two decades have purchased their own houses. D. The percentage of working people owning their own houses has declined more rapidly in the last decade than in the decade preceding this last. E. The number of jobs in the country has gone up by fifty percent while the number of houses has gone up by forty percent in the last two decades.
Option B: Rental Accommodation trend upwards ----> increases financial benifit of owning house ---->increase cost of owning house .... but this donot talk about Govt measures
Option E: job increased 50% ( a clear outcome of +ve govt measures) AND housing increase 40%(could be a +ve govt measures) -- thus govt has done something but still the housing price is going up ( may be due to other factors of economics e.g., supply -demand). Hence the claim about the Govt's action in the argument weakens . Ans Option E
COnclusion is that government has not done enough to keep salary at par with rising cost of houses. Not everyone owns a house - so how will they benefit from it? Option C makes more sense - that government has created opportunities - or done something for people who do not have houses to afford - houses. Maybe not with income but this directly negates it better than whatever B says. It only speaks about why housing prices increased - nothing about all citizen's salary who may or may not own a house. KarishmaB - please help if this is a poor quality question or my CR skills are weak
B. The trend of rental accommodation has increased drastically in the last two decades, adding to the financial benefits of owning a house and thereby, increasing the cost of owning a house. Could you explain how (B) is correct? My rejection reason was that (B) just explains the fact why cost of owning a house increased.
E. The number of jobs in the country has gone up by fifty percent while the number of houses has gone up by forty percent in the last two decades. Can you pls explain how this is wrong? I thought that all other options are wrong and (E) provides an alternative reason or how government cannot be blamed for the phenomenon observed in the argument.
statistical information given-->points to inefficiency of govt over the point of discussion. what if the statistical information which is the basis of the conclusion is a result of other reason, that is mentioned in B. however E talks about the efforts of govt to provide more no of jobs in relation to the no of houses increased , but not on the increase in the salaries/purchasing power of people correspondingly to the increase in the prices of houses . so B fits better .
B. The trend of rental accommodation has increased drastically in the last two decades, adding to the financial benefits of owning a house and thereby, increasing the cost of owning a house. Could you explain how (B) is correct? My rejection reason was that (B) just explains the fact why cost of owning a house increased.
E. The number of jobs in the country has gone up by fifty percent while the number of houses has gone up by forty percent in the last two decades. Can you pls explain how this is wrong? I thought that all other options are wrong and (E) provides an alternative reason or how government cannot be blamed for the phenomenon observed in the argument.
Show more
It's a busted question.
The conclusion of the argument is that the government has not done enough to ensure that salaries increase as per the increasing costs of houses, but the credited answer presents a reason why housing costs have increased, not a reason to believe that the government may have done enough to ensure that the citizens' salaries increase as per the increasing costs of houses.
Also, (E) doesn't work either, because the point of the argument involves increasing salaries, not "the number of jobs."
So, there's no correct answer among the answer choices.
COnclusion is that government has not done enough to keep salary at par with rising cost of houses. Not everyone owns a house - so how will they benefit from it? Option C makes more sense - that government has created opportunities - or done something for people who do not have houses to afford - houses. Maybe not with income but this directly negates it better than whatever B says. It only speaks about why housing prices increased - nothing about all citizen's salary who may or may not own a house. KarishmaB - please help if this is a poor quality question or my CR skills are weak
Show more
The question makes no sense. No option addresses what the Govt may or may not have done. Ignore.
This Question is Locked Due to Poor Quality
Hi there,
The question you've reached has been archived due to not meeting our community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Looking for better-quality questions? Check out the 'Similar Questions' block below
for a list of similar but high-quality questions.
Want to join other relevant Problem Solving discussions? Visit our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
for the most recent and top-quality discussions.
The key is to catch on the word 'drastically' in option 'B'. it clearly shows that government must have done its part in ensuring salary increase but due to high attractiveness, owning a house beyond purpose of necessity the prices saw a more than normal spike.