For years, most of the jobs for the public park grounds crew in the ci

Question

For years, most of the jobs for the public park grounds crew in the city of Hamport have been minimum wage positions. Rents in Hamport have been steadily rising over the past decade, and housing advocates have argued that that employees earning minimum wage salaries who rent in Hamport would experience tremendous economic strain. Under pressure from these housing advocates, the city council of Hamport agreed to a dollar an hour raise for the public park grounds crew. When the city council member met with the grounds crew to announce this raise, the grounds crew as a group rejected the offer, but this is not surprising, because ____________________.

Which of the following most logically completes the passage? 
a. bus drivers and transportation workers in Hamport, whose unions negotiates directly with the city council, recently received a two dollar raise.
b. the increased annual salary would mean the grounds crew would no longer be eligible for the county’s low-income medical plan.
c. most of the public park grounds crew live in nearby Dudley, where rents are cheaper, and commute to Hamport.
d. last month, two members of the city council spoke out against poor condition of Hamport’s public parks, for which the grounds crew is responsible.
e. many members of the grounds crew resent the new homeless shelter, in the corner of the largest public park, that the housing advocates sponsored.

VeritasPrepBrian · Accepted Answer

One theme that comes up over and over again in Plan/Strategy questions is trap answers that bring in a new group or different strategy that's outside the scope of the current plan (answers like "in this other city, a similar plan didn't work" or "another country tried this other plan and it worked really well"). What's generally wrong with those answers is that they don't hit the argument's specific plan working with the argument's specific group. Here in this argument we don't know whether transportation workers have specific skills or qualifications that makes them more worthy of a higher raise (clearly doctors vs. minimum wage workers would expect higher increases; what about transportation workers?), so A isn't able to make a direct case that a $2/hour range is even an option for the workers in question, or that the workers in question had even been trying to negotiate for a raise (we know housing advocates were, but we don't know whether the grounds crew union was actively pushing for a raise). In general, be wary of the maybe analogous, maybe not group or plan...do they really impact this one?

Another thing we like to say at Veritas Prep is "the existence of a better plan doesn't weaken this plan" in "Weaken the Plan" questions. Yeah $2/hour would be a better increase than $1/hour, but why here - again, we don't know that they even asked for a raise - would you reject a raise of any kind? B gives that reason: hey, actually that raise comes at a big cost for these people - there's a chance that they end up worse off than they were before. When you're asked to weaken a plan, you want to show that the plan has a chance to 1) not work at all or 2) be counterproductive. And here B shows that it would be counterproductive.

So basically:

A suggests that there might be a better plan

B shows that THIS plan could be entirely counterproductive.

In weaken-the-plan questions, the answer that shows a direct reason why THIS plan won't work in THIS situation is the right answer.

Gekkdude · Answer

Logically,
The ground crew "as a group" rejected the 1$ raise from the CC....
A. Bus drivers/transportation workers union (which supports "as a group" interest) negotiated more directly that could help with increasing costs over the past decade. 
B. assumes the ground crew need medical health insurance coverage and the only low-income option would be lost with the 1$ increase. 
Between A. and B., A. could help offset the cost of low-income medical insurance. Prices are not mentioned !

So shouldn't it be A?

surendrasaini1 · Answer

For years, most of the jobs for the public park grounds crew in the city of Hamport have been minimum wage positions. Rents in Hamport have been steadily rising over the past decade, and housing advocates have argued that that employees earning minimum wage salaries who rent in Hamport would experience tremendous economic strain. Under pressure from these housing advocates, the city council of Hamport agreed to a dollar an hour raise for the public park grounds crew. When the city council member met with the grounds crew to announce this raise, the grounds crew as a group rejected the offer, but this is not surprising, because ____________________.

Which of the following most logically completes the passage? 
a. bus drivers and transportation workers in Hamport, whose unions negotiates directly with the city council, recently received a two dollar raise.(this reason is not strong enough to reject the rise)
b. the increased annual salary would mean the grounds crew would no longer be eligible for the county’s low-income medical plan.( This reason provides strong ground for rejecting the offer)
c. most of the public park grounds crew live in nearby Dudley, where rents are cheaper, and commute to Hamport.(this reason would be a win win situation for them)
d. last month, two members of the city council spoke out against poor condition of Hamport’s public parks, for which the grounds crew is responsible.( Out of scope)
e. many members of the grounds crew resent the new homeless shelter, in the corner of the largest public park, that the housing advocates sponsored.(out of scope)

Will go with choice B

auradediligodo · Answer

Hi everyone,
The conclusion states that these people rejected an increase in salary for a reason. We need to find a negative side effect that would come with the increase in salary.

Option B clearly gives us a good reason to turn down the offer. Hence Option B is correct. 
All the other options are irrelevant

RahulHGGmat · Answer

Hi Expert,

Request you to confirm why option C cannot be the answer choice as it seems valid that they will not be affected by an increase in rent and hence they rejected the increase in pay.

nisheshj · Answer

Hi, Think for yourself, even if you stay in outskirts, is that a good reason to turn down the hike? You will obviously accept the hike, right. It will enhance your std. of living. Hence C is not a good reason to reject the hike. 
But B: if they will not be able to utilize govt. scheme due to this hike, their overall expense will increase. Think, Medical bills were free for those people earlier, but now, they will have to pay (may be more than what $1/hr can increase their income). Hence "Its not surprising that they want to stay in their existing salary."

For years, most of the jobs for the public park grounds crew in the ci

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

For years, most of the jobs for the public park grounds crew in the ci

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