The average salary of the legally employed population in the country

Question

The average salary of the legally employed population in the country has gone up from USD 30,000 per annum to USD 43,000 per annum in the last five years. Even after accounting for inflation over these years, this rise is substantial. This increase is, at least in part, because of the manufacturing industry which employs an increasing share of the employable population.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage above?

A. The manufacturing industry is the biggest employer in the country.
B. The legally employable population has increased in the last five years.
C. Industries other than manufacturing have not increased their employees salaries in the last five years.
D. The average salary rise in industries other than manufacturing is lower than that in manufacturing.
E. If it were not for the growth in the salaries in the manufacturing industry, the average salary would have been less than 43,000 per annum today.

garcmillan · Answer

Following Nightblade354 advise to push my CR skills beyond the limits, I'll post an extensive analysis of this questions, explaining the initial thoughts on the stimulus and the reasons why I reject four options and choose one as the winner

. I beieve this is one of the best ways to improve in CR. Don't just do questions, but try to extract as much as possible from each of them. I think doing blind review help a lot in doing so (more about blind review here: https://gmatclub.com/forum/mod-nightbla ... 95316.html) Here is the stimulus: The average salary of the legally employed population in the country has gone up from USD 30,000 per annum to USD 43,000 per annum in the last five years. Even after accounting for inflation over these years, this rise is substantial. This increase is, at least in part, because of the manufacturing industry which employs an increasing share of the employable population. Initial thoughts: Apparently, there has been an increase in the average salary of legally employed population because it is beating inflation (so real wages are up!). Then the argument mentions that is (in part) thanks to the manufacturing industry. So with this sentence, I know that the manufacturing industry has increased the real wages in the country, and that there are also other industries that have contributed to the increase (because it says: at least in part) Let's jump into the answers: A. The manufacturing industry is the biggest employer in the country Good to know, but this does not have any influence in the average salary of legally employed people in the country. OUT B. The legally employable population has increased in the last five years Ok. Population may have also increased and that's the reason because of the increase in legally employable population. This does not have any impact in salaries. OUT C. Industries other than manufacturing have not increased their employees salaries in the last five years We can't infer this from the passage as it is exactly the opposite as explained in my initial thoughts (other industries also contributed to the increase). OUT D. The average salary rise in industries other than manufacturing is lower than that in manufacturing KEEP! This option says that other industries contributed to the rise, but less than the manufacturing industry (and that is the reason why it is specifically mentioning it in the argument, because it is the one that has contributed more). However I see there is a problem. It says the rise, but this rise could be below inflation, so I am not to convinced with this option E. If it were not for the growth in the salaries in the manufacturing industry, the average salary would have been less than 43,000 per annum today. This option implies that the increase in the manufacturing industry was more than the overall, which is definitely said by the argument. KEEP and SELECT this one OPTION E

akankshathareja · Answer

GMATNinja  Could you please help me understand why A is not the right choice, and why E is?

As per the argument, "the manufacturing industry employs an increasing share of the employable population" - This means that manufacturing industry has been hiring the most, which is exactly what (A) states.

Also, (E) puts forth a very strong claim that the average salary would have been less than 43k per annum - It could be possible that if the growth in salaries in manufacturing industry were not that much, MANY other industries with small number of employees with high raises would have a generated an average of 43k. The argument mentions that the manufacturing industry had a big role to play for its share of hires. Nowhere in the passage is mentioned that other industries would not have been able to give big hikes (even if small in count).

Thanks in advance!

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi Akanksha

Let me try to address your query. Let us focus on the portion of the passage that you have highlighted: "the manufacturing industry employs an increasing share of the employable population".

Contrary to what you have stated, this does not have to mean that the manufacturing industry has been hiring  the most . This only means that the proportion of population employed in manufacturing today is more than it was five years ago. It is possible that some other industry has also increased its share, and that too more than manufacturing. The passage does not rule this out. Additionally, option (A) does not state that manufacturing has been hiring the most, either. It only states that manufacturing employs more people than any other industry, for which there is no basis in the passage. Hence option (A) is incorrect.

The passage does not state that manufacturing has had "a big role" to play in the salary increase - it only states that it has had a part to play ("This increase is, at least in part, because of the manufacturing industry..."). We do not know to what extent this industry has influenced this increase in salary.

Hope this clarifies your doubt.

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

The average salary of the legally employed population in the country has gone up from USD 30,000 per annum to USD 43,000 per annum in the last five years. Even after accounting for inflation over these years, this rise is substantial. This increase is, at least in part, because of the manufacturing industry which employs an increasing share of the employable population.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage above?

Pre-thinking:

The average salary has increased over the last five years, and the manufacturing industry has contributed to this increase. Therefore, the average salary in the manufacturing industry has also increased. Additionally, more people are employed in manufacturing today than there were five years ago. With this in mind, let us examine the answer choices.

A. The manufacturing industry is the biggest employer in the country.  We only know that the manufacturing industry employs more people today than it did five years ago. It is possible that some other industry employs a greater proportion of the legally employed population than manufacturing. This is not ruled out by the passage. Eliminate.

B. The legally employable population has increased in the last five years.  The passage only gives us information about the proportion of population employed in manufacturing and nothing about the absolute number of people employed. Eliminate.

C. Industries other than manufacturing have not increased their employees salaries in the last five years.  We know nothing about any other industries. Eliminate.

D. The average salary rise in industries other than manufacturing is lower than that in manufacturing.  We do not know this. We know that manufacturing has played "a part" in the increase in average salaries. It is entirely possible that other industries have increased salaries more than manufacturing. Eliminate.

E. If it were not for the growth in the salaries in the manufacturing industry, the average salary would have been less than 43,000 per annum today. Correct answer. Since there has been an increase in salaries in manufacturing ("This increase is, at least in part, because of the manufacturing industry..."), an absence of this increase would mean average salaries would be lower than they are now.

Hope this helps.

azamatboden · Answer

I might be wrong, but I've read somewhere that if a stimuli mentions numbers, there is a high chance that the answer will contain numbers as well. Don't take my word for it though - just thought I should mention it.

IanStewart · Answer

But that's not what the question says. The question says the average salary in the country has increased, and it says that the proportion of people employed in manufacturing has increased. It doesn't say that any individual salary has increased at all, and nowhere says that manufacturing job salaries increased. It might just be that, say, every other job pays $30,000 per year, and manufacturing jobs pay $43,000 per year. Maybe no one was employed in manufacturing five years ago, and now everyone is. There's no need for any salaries to change at all.

So when I read answer E: "If it were not for the growth in the salaries in the manufacturing industry, the average salary would have been less than 43,000 per annum today", I'm led to ask "what growth in those salaries?" The stem doesn't mention anywhere that manufacturing salaries grew. Naturally, if manufacturing salaries did increase over the last five years, then if you take that increase away, and leave everything else unchanged, the average goes down. But that would be true no matter what sector you were talking about -- if you make some numbers in your set smaller, you decrease the average. The answer would be just as valid an inference if it talked about retail job salaries, assuming those increased. So if the stem did mention increased salaries in manufacturing, E would be true, but for no other reason than that's how math works; none of the information in the stem would be important. But as written, I don't see how E is a correct inference when it seems to be asking us to infer that a salary increase occurred that we have no reason to believe actually did occur.

udaypratapsingh99 · Answer

But hey,
the author doesn't say anything about increased avg salary in the manufacturing industry. It says it is because of the increased share of the employable population.

Consider, the previously avg salary in the manufacturing industry was 60,000. As avg salary for all was 30,000, there must be some employees earning less than 30,000. Now, the manufacturing industry hires some of these low-earning employees at 40,000, which is still much lower than the manufacturing industry's average. This is what happens in this case:
1) Manufacturing industry now employs an increased share of the employable population. And overall average salary increases.  (Satisfies the question's condition) 
2) Average salary of the manufacturing industry goes down.  (Contradicts the option E)

E should be  wrong

Ankit__7182 · Answer

True, Any option including E is incorrect.
If it were not for the growth in the salaries in the manufacturing industry, the average salary would have been  less, equal or more  than 43,000 per annum today.  It totally depends on average salary of employees in manufacturing and other industries.

Crackverbal   please help to check.

Raman109 · Answer

Understanding the argument - 
The average salary of the legally employed population in the country has gone up from USD 30,000 per annum to USD 43,000 per annum in the last five years. - Premise/Background info. 
Even after accounting for inflation over these years, this rise is substantial. - Opinion. 
This increase is, at least in part, because of the manufacturing industry which employs an increasing share of the employable population. - Supporting premise.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the passage above?

A. The manufacturing industry is the biggest employer in the country. - We don't know. "Might be true" category, which is wrong as we can't say with 100% confidence.

B. The legally employable population has increased in the last five years. - No mention in the passage.

C. Industries other than manufacturing have not increased their employees salaries in the last five years. - We don't know.

D. The average salary rise in industries other than manufacturing is lower than that in manufacturing. - The comparison between manufacturing and non-manufacturing is not mentioned. We can't deduce this from the average increase. Maybe there is an industry that provides five times the salary of the manufacturer, but the sample is too small.

E. If it were not for the growth in the salaries in the manufacturing industry, the average salary would have been less than 43,000 per annum today. - We can deduce this.

sayan640 · Answer

Any official explanation that can be provided with?

Posted from my mobile device

abdatta · Answer

I'm not convinced E should be the answer. E suggests that growth in employment by the manufacturing industry is a necessary condition for the exact salary increase. The passage however mentions that it is "in part" responsible for this increase, which means there must be other reasons as well. So how can we say for sure that any of these other reasons could not have balanced the lack of growth in manufacturing industries?

Posted from my mobile device

Posted from my mobile device

siddhantvarma · Answer

OA:

Mind-map : Average salary in country went up → the rise is high even after considering inflation - manufacturing industry employing an increasing share of working population has, at least partly, caused the rise in salaries

Missing-link : Not needed

Expectation from the correct answer choice : To be duly deducible from the information in the passage, without any assumption or extrapolation
 Discussion : Please note that the following text in the passage is a "premise" and not the "conclusion" - "This increase is, at least in part, because of the manufacturing industry ..."; the absence of any logical conjunction such as "hence", "so", "therefore" before this statement suggests that this statement is the premise and not the conclusion of the argument.

A. The passage suggests that the manufacturing industry "employs an increasing share of the employable population" but not that the industry is the "biggest" employer; please note, a hint here is in the term "biggest", which is extremely strong; one g needs to be cautious of such answer choices as they are generally incorrect on the GMAT. Because this answer choice is not deducible from the information in the passage without any assumption or extrapolation, this answer choice is incorrect.

B. The passage mentions a rise in the average salary of the legally employed population and in the manufacturing industry's share of the employable population, but no information about the size of the legally employed population can be derived from the passage. Because this answer choice is not deducible from the information in the passage without any assumption or extrapolation, this answer choice is incorrect.

C. No information about the salary rise in any industry, including manufacturing, can be derived from the passage. Besides, "no increase in salaries" is extremely strong; one needs to be cautious of such answer choices as they are generally incorrect on the GMAT. Further, it is possible/likely that industries other than manufacturing have increased their salaries and thus contributed to the increase in average salary; so, this answer choice does not have to be true; please note that the correct inference must be certainly true. Because this answer choice is not deducible from the information in the passage without any assumption or extrapolation, this answer choice is incorrect.

D. Trap. The passage mentions that the manufacturing industry employs an "increasing share of the employable population"; no information about whether the industry is "increasing these employees' salaries" can be derived from the passage; no information about the salary rise in other industries can be derived too. Overall, this answer choice, making a comparison between terms that cannot be derived from the passage, cannot be inferred. Because this answer choice is not deducible from the information in the passage without any assumption or extrapolation, this answer choice is incorrect.

E.   Correct  . The passage mentions that the manufacturing industry employing an "increasing share of the employable population" contributed to the average salary rising to 43,000 per annum and "has, at least partly, caused the rise in salaries", suggesting that if the industry had not shown an increase in the share of employable population, the average salary would not have raised to a similar level; so, without the manufacturing industry's increasing share of employment, a lower increase in average salary is likely; so, this answer choice can be established. Because this answer choice is deducible from the information in the passage without any assumption or extrapolation, this answer choice is correct.

The average salary of the legally employed population in the country

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

The average salary of the legally employed population in the country

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