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.
Apr 2308:00 PM PDT
-09:00 PM PDT
Video explanations + diagnosis of 10 weakest areas + 150+ short videos + study plan!
Apr 2301:30 AM EDT
-02:30 AM EDT
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.
Apr 2512:30 AM EDT
-01:30 AM EDT
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.
Apr 2610:00 AM EDT
-11:00 AM EDT
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!
Apr 2711:00 AM EDT
-12:00 PM EDT
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
Apr 2808:00 AM PDT
-11:00 AM PDT
Whether you are just beginning your MBA journey or fine-tuning your path to a 700+ score, GMAT Day is designed to give you a competitive edge.
huongguyen
Joined: 23 May 2020
Last visit: 26 Nov 2022
Posts: 158
Given Kudos: 143
Concentration: Statistics, Finance
Schools: Foster '22 Marshall '25 Tepper '24
GPA: 3.41
WE:Advertising (Advertising and PR)
11 Sep 2021, 19:18
Kudos
Bookmarks
C
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
5%
(low)
Question Stats:
95% (00:59) correct
5%
(01:12)
wrong
based on 265
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Editorial: Clearly, during the past two years, the unemployment situation in our city has been improving. Studies show that the number of unemployed people who are actively looking for jobs has steadily decreased during that period.
The editorial’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that the government is at least partly responsible for the improvement in the employment situation
(B) relies on data from a period that is too short to justify an inference about a general trend
(C) fails to take into account the possibility that many unemployed workers who still desire jobs may have stopped looking for jobs
(D) fails to take into account that the sorts of governmental efforts that reduce unemployment may not be effective in creating more high-paying jobs
(E) ignores other economic indicators, which may not have improved during the past two years
The editorial’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) presumes, without providing justification, that the government is at least partly responsible for the improvement in the employment situation
(B) relies on data from a period that is too short to justify an inference about a general trend
(C) fails to take into account the possibility that many unemployed workers who still desire jobs may have stopped looking for jobs
(D) fails to take into account that the sorts of governmental efforts that reduce unemployment may not be effective in creating more high-paying jobs
(E) ignores other economic indicators, which may not have improved during the past two years
huongguyen
Joined: 23 May 2020
Last visit: 26 Nov 2022
Posts: 158
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 143
Concentration: Statistics, Finance
Schools: Foster '22 Marshall '25 Tepper '24
GPA: 3.41
WE:Advertising (Advertising and PR)
Updated on: 15 Sep 2021, 05:52
Originally posted by huongguyen on 11 Sep 2021, 19:22.
Last edited by Bunuel on 15 Sep 2021, 05:52, edited 1 time in total.
Last edited by Bunuel on 15 Sep 2021, 05:52, edited 1 time in total.
Added OE!
Kudos
Bookmarks
OFFICIAL EPLXANATION
Over the past couple of years, “unemployment” (as measured by the number of people searching for jobs) has actually been falling. But this is largely in part because lots of people have simply given up. That doesn’t mean the unemployment situation has actually been improving. Rather, it means that our stupid “unemployment” statistic is kinda worthless.
We’re asked to find grounds for criticizing the editor’s argument, and that’s exactly where I’d start. “Dude, you cited studies about the number of people looking for work. What if people have just given up?”
A) No. The editorialist doesn’t ever mention the government.
B) No way. The editorialist isn’t trying to claim there is a general trend. The editorialist is only concluding that things have gotten better over the past two years, and cites data from the past two years to back that up. There’s nothing wrong with the editorialist’s argument as far as sample size is concerned.
C) Yeah, this is exactly what we were looking for.
D) Again, the editorialist never mentioned the government.
E) The editorialist didn’t make any claim about the economy as a whole, so this can’t be the answer. The editorialist was only talking about unemployment, so the worst attack we could make on the editorialist is to say, “Your unemployment statistics are leaving out a very important consideration relevant to actual employment.”
So C is our answer.
Over the past couple of years, “unemployment” (as measured by the number of people searching for jobs) has actually been falling. But this is largely in part because lots of people have simply given up. That doesn’t mean the unemployment situation has actually been improving. Rather, it means that our stupid “unemployment” statistic is kinda worthless.
We’re asked to find grounds for criticizing the editor’s argument, and that’s exactly where I’d start. “Dude, you cited studies about the number of people looking for work. What if people have just given up?”
A) No. The editorialist doesn’t ever mention the government.
B) No way. The editorialist isn’t trying to claim there is a general trend. The editorialist is only concluding that things have gotten better over the past two years, and cites data from the past two years to back that up. There’s nothing wrong with the editorialist’s argument as far as sample size is concerned.
C) Yeah, this is exactly what we were looking for.
D) Again, the editorialist never mentioned the government.
E) The editorialist didn’t make any claim about the economy as a whole, so this can’t be the answer. The editorialist was only talking about unemployment, so the worst attack we could make on the editorialist is to say, “Your unemployment statistics are leaving out a very important consideration relevant to actual employment.”
So C is our answer.
Moderators:
