From 1996 to 2004, the average family income in a certain c

Question

From 1996 to 2004, the average family income in a certain country decreased by 10 percent, after adjustments for inflation. Opponents of the political party that ruled during this time claim that this was due to mismanagement of the economy by that party.

Each of the following rejoinders, if true, directly counters the opponents' explanation of the decrease in average family income EXCEPT:

(A) There had been a rise in family income in 1996, after adjustments for inflation.

(B) For noneconomic reasons, fewer families had multiple incomes at the end of the period than at the beginning.

(C) During the period, international events beyond the control of the country's government had a negative effect on family incomes in the country.

(D) Younger wage earners usually earn less than older ones, and the average age of household wage earners fell during most years in the past several decades.

(E) The biggest decreases in family income resulted from policies enacted before the ruling party came to power in 1996.

Nikhil · Answer

Opponents of the political party claim that the decrease in the average family income was due to mismanagement of the economy by that party.

(A) There had been a rise in family income in 1996, after adjustments for inflation.

There had been a rise in family income in 1996 and then decreased from 1996 to 2004. This option directly supports the opponents claim.

(B) For noneconomic reasons, fewer families had multiple incomes at the end of the period than at the beginning.

This option again echoes the fact stated in the argument i.e fewer families had multiple incomes at the end of the period than at the beginning and supports the opponents conclusion  INCORRECT

(C) During the period, international events beyond the control of the country's government had a negative effect on family incomes in the country.

The opponents claim is that the mismanagement of the economy by the party caused the average family income to decrease. This option talks about the international events beyond the control of the country's government and hence doesn't directly affect the opponents claim  INCORRECT

(D) Younger wage earners usually earn less than older ones, and the average age of household wage earners fell during most years in the past several decades.

Unrelated to opponents claim  INCORRECT

(E) The biggest decreases in family income resulted from policies enacted before the ruling party came to power in 1996.

If the previous govt's policies caused the decrease then opponents claim then there is a good chance that those policies accounted for the decrease from 1996 to 2004. This option doesn't directly attack the opponents claim as this option talks about the policies of previous government.  INCORRECT

Hence  option A

avikroy · Answer

is there a typo in yur answer............other than option A , all options provide an alternate explanation of the decrease in family household income.........thus directly countering the opponents claim.......

unraveled · Answer

From 1996 to 2004, the average family income in a certain country decreased by 10 percent, after adjustments for inflation. Opponents of the political party that ruled during this time claim that this was due to mismanagement of the economy by that party.

Each of the following rejoinders, if true, directly counters the opponents' explanation of the decrease in average family income EXCEPT:

(A) There had been a rise in family income in 1996, after adjustments for inflation. - CORRECT. At best it gives a slight hint towards a possible mismanagement by that political party's govt. Even though AFI increased, there was decrease in that period. However, it doesn't counters explicitly, but certainly points fingers. Hence relatively doesn't counters.

(B) For  noneconomic reasons , fewer families had multiple incomes at the end of the period than at the beginning. - WRONG. Yes, it counters in the manner that fewer families contributed less, thus decreasing AFI. Was that so due to mismanagement? Surely not because the reason given was noneconomic - something that must not have been under economic circles of that political party's govt.

(C) During the period,  international events beyond the control of the country's government  had a negative effect on family incomes in the country. - WRONG. An easy elimination since it gives an alternative reason for such decrease.

(D) Younger wage earners  usually earn less than older ones , and the  average age of household wage earners fell  during most years in the past several decades. - WRONG. Certainly not an economic reason but demographic one. Again beyond the controls of that political party's govt.

(E) The  biggest decreases  in family income  resulted from policies enacted before the ruling party came  to power in 1996. - WRONG. Those biggest decreases created a dent so deep that the impact was felt in 2004 as well. Again something not in the economic realms of that political party's govt.

The problem with this passage is that it takes three u-turns in the form of 
1. opposition by the opponents 
2. countering the opponents' explanation
3. by going for 'EXCEPT' choice

Answer A.

anud33p · Answer

Kushchokhani , Although it doesn't make a whole lot of difference, not sure why you would want to do that? This is both an Except and Weaken question -  the other four options all weaken the conclusion , one doesn't. So, it is only fair to classify this as a Weaken question. One can frame "Except" category questions on top of Strengthen or Weaken or Inference. So, for me, "Except" alone doesn't help me narrow down the search space much when I am, let's say, interested in practicing a specific genre of questions. But then, of course, it's just my two cents.

Cheers

Sajjad1994 · Answer

Explanation

Find the answer that does NOT counter (does NOT weaken) this causal explanation. Four answers will provide alternative explanations or undermine the link, while the correct  "EXCEPT"  answer will either be irrelevant or could even strengthen the opponents' claim.

A.   This describes the starting point but says nothing about the cause of the subsequent 8-year decline. The party could still have mismanaged the economy after a high starting point. This NEITHER WEAKENS NOR STRENGTHENS. It is irrelevant to the cause of the decline.

B.  This provides a clear alternative cause: the decline might be due to a demographic/household structure change (fewer earners per family), not economic policy. WEAKENS the causal link to mismanagement.

C.  This also provides a clear alternative cause: factors beyond the government's control hurt incomes, absolving the ruling party of blame.

D.  This too provides a clear alternative cause: the decline could be due to a younger, less-experienced workforce earning less, not economic policy.

E.  This shifts the blame to a previous administration. The current party inherited policies that caused the biggest decreases. WEAKENS the causal link to the ruling party's mismanagement.

Answer: A

agrasan · Answer

Hi experts  KarishmaB   MartyMurray   DmitryFarber

(A) There had been a rise in family income in 1996, after adjustments for inflation.

Can we reject (A) directly on the basis of reasoning that the argument talks about  overall decrease  from 1996 to 2004 i.e.,  not every year decrease  so (A) is consistent with the argument that there can be a year where the income increases/stays constant, thus, (A) is not relevant for us to strengthen/weaken?

Please let me know if this was a flawed reasoning.

guddo · Answer

Yes, I think, your reasoning is basically right.

(A) is  consistent  with a 1996 to 2004 overall decline, because an overall decline does not require every single year to drop. So (A) does not give an alternative cause, and it does not show the ruling party was not responsible.  That’s why it fails to directly counter the opponents’ claim.

The only tweak: it’s not just “not relevant”, it’s specifically  not a counterargument , because it does not explain the 10% drop by something other than mismanagement.

KarishmaB · Answer

The problem with (A) is that what happened in 1996 relative to the previous years (income increased in 1996) is irrelevant. Perhaps the economy did well that year and hence people earned more. The point is what happened from 1996 to 2004 onwards. We need to find out why the 1996 levels could not be maintained or improved. Why the economy did not continue to do well after that. The opposition claims it is because of the govt policies and mismanagement. This is a possible cause. Knowing that in 1996, the income had increased compared to previous years does not weaken that the govt mismanaged.

Had we been given something that said that the avg income levels in 1996 were artificially inflated by a few very rich families who then moved out or something like that, then it could make sense. Essentially, then we would have said that the reference point was artificially high. It wasn't the Govt's mismanagement that led to lower incomes later.

agrasan · Answer

Thanks  KarishmaB

Just for my clarification , if we revised (A) to (A') by changing 1996 to 1997 then does my earlier reasoning hold?
  (A') There had been a rise in family income in   1997  , after adjustments for inflation.

Can we reject (A') directly on the basis of reasoning that the argument talks about overall decrease from 1996 to 2004 i.e., not every year decrease so (A') is consistent with the argument that there can be a year where the income increases/stays constant, thus, (A') is not relevant for us to strengthen/weaken?

KarishmaB · Answer

Yes, then your reasoning makes perfect sense.

vasu1104 · Answer

opponents are assuming that there are no other reason for decrease but ruling partys mismanagements of economy.

A we dont know how much raise had happened and we also dont know the situation in following years. it might be up or down. so this cant be weakner  
 B that means they might have lost the job or were not able to work so thats reason they could not hike their income. clearly weaken it. 
 C that means there was some world issues that lower the family income, so clearly weaken it. 
 D that means more of elder people are working ans since they are easrning less so obviously avge income would be less. clearly weaken it. 
 E that means ruling party had no role in result. it was result of earlier policies. clearly weakens ir.

From 1996 to 2004, the average family income in a certain c

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

From 1996 to 2004, the average family income in a certain c

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