A decade ago, the manufacturing industry of Country X could boast a me

Question

A decade ago, the manufacturing industry of Country X could boast a mere 12 factories. Today, 200 factories comprise the manufacturing industry of this small country. Prior to the increase, Country X had an almost entirely agricultural economy and was severely impoverished. Clearly, thanks to the new industrial economy, the citizens of this nation now enjoy many more opportunities for employment.

Which of the following, if true, most strengthens the argument?

(A) Industrial jobs tend to pay higher wages and offer greater opportunity for advancement than do agricultural jobs.
(B) Many more citizens of Country X currently attend school and employment training centers than did in the previous decade.
(C) Each of the new factories, on average, employs half as many workers from Country X as each of the 12 original factories did a decade ago.
(D) The number of factories in Country X is expected to continue to increase for at least another decade as new industries are introduced.
(E) In the previous decade, the minority of citizens of Country X who worked in factories earned wages well above the national median.

ElninoEffect · Answer

Hi  Bunuel

It's a strengthening question and the answer provided fits for a weakner, unless of course if I am missing something.!
Please look into the same, I think it should be A instead of C.

VicariousAdmit · Answer

The reason C could be considered strengthening is because it's giving us a useful perspective on employment.

As an example Country X could have had 12 giant factories (maybe they are government owned corporations or something). If 200 factories existed later on this wouldn't necessarily imply a huge growth in factory workers as the new factories could be much smaller than average than the original 12. For all we know some original giant factories could have gone under in light of this competition, only to be replaced by smaller more specialized factories. Ex: Originally 12 factories with 150 employees on avg = 1800 factory employees. 200 factories with 7 people on average = 1400. Does this seem likely? Not really, but it is possible and that's usually enough on the GMAT to not be ruled out.

Anyways it's all speculation, but the main idea is we don't know how factory employment has really changed because we don't know the relative size of new and old factories. C gives us this connection. 12 factories originally had x employees on average. Now we have 200 factories with x/2 employees on average. The size of the industry changed from 12x to 100x or grew over 8 times in size.

I still don't love the answer to be honest since "more opportunities for employment" seems a little ambiguous. But contextually it seems the question wants us to treat this as raw employment opportunities, and the increase in jobs as a result of new factories seems to fit the best of the available AC.

Mavisdu1017 · Answer

I don’t think C is correct. Each of new factory just hires half of employees as did each of original factory, this shows each new factory offers fewer opportunities for employment. 
Welcome to discuss.

mehtasahil56 · Answer

well I actually agree with you'll the answer c doesnt actually strengthen the argument

Bunuel · Answer

Knewton Official Explanation

The question asks us to support the idea that the increase in the number of factories in Country X (evidence) corresponds to an increase in employment opportunities for its citizens (conclusion).

A good way to form a pre-phrase for a strengthener is to identify an assumption on which the argument relies and then affirm that assumption. In this case, the argument depends on the fact that the number of people employed by each new factory is high enough such that the total number of current factory employees (scattered among 200 sites) is higher than the number of total factory employees (scattered among 12 sites) one decade ago.

Choice C is correct. If there are currently half as many people per factory as there were a decade ago, the total number of employment opportunities must have increased. For example, if each of the 12 factories a decade ago employed 1,000 people from Country X, then those factories employed 12,000 people total. Even if, per choice C, the 200 current factories only employed half as many people each (500), there would still be 100,000 factory workers total—a far cry from the total 12,000 total factory workers one decade ago.

Choice A states that industrial jobs provide better pay and more opportunities for advancement than do agricultural jobs. This information relates to the quality, rather than quantity, of job opportunities. The argument claims that the citizens of this country will have more opportunities, not better ones.

Choice B states that more citizens of Country X currently attend school and employment training than did previously. This may be evidence of an overall improvement in the country's economy and infrastructure, but it does not strengthen the idea that there are more employment opportunities as a result of the increased number of factories.

Choice D states that the number of factories is expected to continue to increase in the future. While this, too, may be evidence of an overall economic upturn for Country X, it is irrelevant to the question of whether or not these new factories provide increased employment opportunities.

Choice E, like choice A, provides evidence that industrial jobs offer better—but not necessarily more—opportunities to citizens of Country X than do agricultural jobs.

Choice C is correct.

sanjitscorps18 · Answer

There seems to be a scope shift when it comes to the actual argument. In the argument Industrialization only refers to the increase in the share of market share of the economy but the necessary assumption that is missing is that Industrailization is also increasing employment

Option A suggests that industrial jobs do pay higher salaries so it would help in removing impoverishment but it overlooks the vital assumption necessary for this argument -> Industrialization should also bring employment.

Option C does that. Just a level beyond the actual scope of the argument. Happy to discuss.

jatin093 · Answer

While A provides information about the higher pay that the industrial jobs offer, it does not provide any info whether people of the country X are getting the jobs.
AND
While C provides information that people of country X are getting those new jobs, it does not provide any information about whether the pay in that job is higher.

Please someone shed some light on this.

wadhwakaran · Answer

Conclusion: The new factories have made the economy of the Country X to be the Industrial Economy, which in turn led to the more employment opportunities for the citizens of the nation.

We have to prove that the new factories are employing more men than were employed earlier.

(A) Industrial jobs tend to pay higher wages and offer greater opportunity for advancement than do agricultural jobs.  Incorrect as it nowhere talks about more employment due to new factories.

(B) Many more citizens of Country X currently attend school and employment training centers than did in the previous decade.  Incorrect as it nowhere talks about more employment due to new factories.

(C) Each of the new factories, on average, employs half as many workers from Country X as each of the 12 original factories did a decade ago. Correct 
let's assume 12 factories employed a total of 600 men
each of the new 200 factories gives employment to atleast 25 men. Therefore, atleast 5000 men are employed now.

(D) The number of factories in Country X is expected to continue to increase for at least another decade as new industries are introduced.  No effect on the conclusion

(E) In the previous decade, the minority of citizens of Country X who worked in factories earned wages well above the national median. No effect on the conclusion

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

A decade ago, the manufacturing industry of Country X could boast a me

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

A decade ago, the manufacturing industry of Country X could boast a me

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