Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance

Question

Editorial:
In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce
unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept
jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers
cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any workerâ€™s income above what
government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed.
Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would
entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of
the editorial?

A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed
individuals and their families.

B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer
must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently
has.

C. People who are currently employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs
than job seekers who are unemployed.

D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less
than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy
the work.

the question is from gmat prep exam pack.
option c has "currently" missing from it.
is option C still correct. As it talks about currently employed adults whereas we are concerned with unemployed adults.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Responding to a pm:

The question is about financial incentives.

This is what the situation is: Say, the govt pays $400/week to the unemployed. Someone who is getting less than $400/week in a job will not work. He will instead like to be unemployed and receive $400. Now, the govt is planning to supplement the income of people who get less than $400. Say, if you get $300/week, the govt will give you $100 to make it $400 but not more than $400.

Conclusion: Unemployed people will have  no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.

Makes sense, right? Whether you work or you don't you still make only $400. So you might have other incentives to work e.g. you like work etc but you don't have a financial incentive to work. What will weaken this conclusion? It will be weakened if you can find a financial incentive that will make people work.

(C) says that people who are already employed get better pay if they switch jobs (as compared to those who are unemployed). This could be a financial incentive for people to take up jobs. They take low paying jobs right now but still get $400 (after adding govt supplement) and later switch and get better paying jobs, possibly jobs that pay more than $400. Hence, this option gives us a financial incentive.

(A) actually strengthens the argument, if at all. 
A - "The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families."
If the govt collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals, the unemployed will get $400/week. But the employed will pay taxes on their salary ($300) and may not pay taxes on $100 of govt assistance but overall they will make less than $400. So there is certainly no financial incentive to work. Instead, you make less money if you work. This makes a better case for the author's opinion which is "unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs"

ttanvir · Answer

Hi All:
 There is no OA for this question. I will post my answer for this question. Thanks 

Q30:
Editorial:
In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce
unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept
jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers
cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any workerâ€™s income above what
government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed.
Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would
entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of
the editorial?

A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed
individuals and their families.

B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer
must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently
has.

C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs
than job seekers who are unemployed.

D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less
than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy
the work.

Answer:
Question Type: Weakening question
Conclusion: The unemployed people do not have any financial incentive to accept jobs.
Premise1: The unemployed people receive government assistance.
Premise1: The employed people with low income plus government supplement will not exceed the government assistance. Let us do a math:

The government assistance = $50
The income = $30
Thus, the supplement= 50-20=$30 


In order to weakening this argument, let us attack the conclusion. If we can prove that the unemployed people DO have financial incentive to accept jobs it will break the conclusion. Let us take a look at the choices:


A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed
individuals and their families.  Taxes will not create any incentive for employment. Out of scope 

B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer
must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently
has.  Low wage creates no incentive for employnment-Strengths the conclusion 

C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs
than job seekers who are unemployed.  If people take low income job, they will get a high income job later. Thus, there is a financial incentive of taking low income jobs. weakens the conclusion. Answer.  

D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less
than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.  This satement will strengths the conclusion because the supplement is higher than the low income.  

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy
the work. The word â€˜sometimesâ€™ does not give a definite conclusion.

Carcass · Answer

A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and
their families.
B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay
an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.
C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job
seekers who are unemployed.
D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the
yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.
E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

i do not see any reason why C is not the answer

A) The fact that the goverment do not collect taxes NOt weaken the argument at all

B) out of scope

D) We do not care about is less than

E) This is not a reason to take a job and not weaken the argument

C) Wins

if you take a job then you can change your job and take another JOB payed better

getgyan · Answer

Premise - To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers cheaply

Conclusion - unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement

Anything which weakens the conclusion is the answer i.e any option which proves that the people will have financial incentive is our answer

Option C is our answer

sr2013 · Answer

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce
unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept
jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers
cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any worker’s income above what
government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. Therefore,
unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them
to the supplement. Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously
weakens the argument of the editorial?

A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.

B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.

C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.

D. The financial assistance that the govt provides to people who have no other income is less than average starting wage.

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.

The argument is same but one of the options is changed. The OA is still C but what is wrong with D. 
In option D the unemployed has incentive to take up jobs as the assistance provided is less than the average starting wage.

KarishmaB · Answer

Supplement will be paid to people whose starting wage will be less than the govt assistance. It doesn't matter what the AVERAGE starting wage is. Say, it is $1000 a month and assistance paid is $800. We are concerned about people who get $600 as starting wage. The govt is planning to provide supplement to them since they don't take up the $600 job since they get $800 for sitting at home and doing nothing. The argument is saying that these people who will get $600 will still not work even if govt pays them $200 supplement because they get $800 anyway even if they just sit at home. Then why work? (financially speaking)
What actually weakens the argument is that people who start with $600 (and get $800 due to the supplement) get higher paying jobs subsequently. So financially it does make sense since after 6 months they may get $1000 job. If they will just take the assistance and sit at home, they will get $800 only after 6 months too.

shyam593 · Answer

Editorial: 
In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce 
unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of those who accept 
jobs that pay less than government assistance, thus enabling employers to hire workers 
cheaply. However, the supplement will not raise any workerâ€™s income above what 
government assistance would provide if he or she were not gainfully employed. 
Therefore, unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would 
entitle them to the supplement.

Which of the following, if true about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of 
the editorial?

A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed 
individuals and their families.

B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer 
must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently 
has.

C. People who are  currently  employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs 
than job seekers who are unemployed.

D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less 
than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy 
the work.

the question is from gmat prep exam pack.
option c has "currently" missing from it.
is option C still correct. As it talks about currently employed adults whereas we are concerned with unemployed adults.

egmat · Answer

Dear Shyam, Responding to your request to answer your post on this thread. :-)

Adding "currently" would defeat the purpose of this choice. It's actually meant to indicate that currently unemployed people may want to take up lower-paying jobs because doing so would increase their chances of switching to a better-paying job. Let me elaborate a bit on this. Let's say Sheila is unemployed and gets $50 a week from the government. If she takes up job#1, which would pay her $40 per week (+$10/week from the government), she would then belong to the category of people who are employed and have a good chance of switching to a higher-paying job. So she could, for example, apply for job#2, which would pay her $60 per week. She'd be eligible for this hike since she'd already be employed at job#1. If she were unemployed and applying for job#2, she may not be offered $60 per week. So, as an unemployed person, she does actually have a financial incentive to apply for job#1 because it would give her the opportunity to apply for a higher-paying job, an opportunity she wouldn't have if she were unemployed. I hope this helps! Regards, Meghna

mvictor · Answer

My pre-thinking was that employed people get benefits, at no cost, that otherwise would cost money.

Since the answer choice did not provide anything similar, I eliminated the rest and got to the C. If employed people can get better money in time, then definitely being employed is better than not being employed.

Divyadisha · Answer

Conclusion:- There is no financial incentive for unemployed to accept the job.

Reason- Money that is given to unemployed > money offered at the low paying job +govt. assistance.

Thing to find- What weakens the argument? Or what is that which shows the presence of financial incentive in accepting the job.

Possible weakeners:- 
1) There is bonus given at the job which is not included in above argument. And the bonus is hefty.
2) The assistance given to unemployed can not be used actually. Govt. deposits the money in an account that can not be drawn within certain period.
3) There is a reason to get the job as it is beneficial in log term.

A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.  This is a good reason to be unemployed.

B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.  Neighboring county?

C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed.  Bingo! Long term benefit is there in accepting the job.

D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.  It doesn't answer if the person will accept the job.

E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.  We want to know their financial decision.

LakerFan24 · Answer

my issue with this Q is the OA assumes a lot: (1) that the unemployed becomes employed and then (2) assumes the newly employed get higher paid jobs. i'm looking for something that weakens the idea that unemployed have no financial incentive to accept jobs for govt supplement, i want something that deals w/ this, not deals w/ (well what if these unemployed ppl become employed and what if this also happens?)

GMATNinja · Answer

The question stem says, "Which of the following,   if true   about Ledland, most seriously weakens the argument of the editorial?" That means that when analyzing choice (C) we can assume that the statement is 100% accurate and that "people who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed."

The conclusion is that, "unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement" proposed by the government. Say, for example, that an unemployed Ledland adult, Jim, is unemployed and given $100 per week in government assistance. If he takes a job that pays $75 per week and the government pays him $25 (as proposed), he will still make $100 per week. Thus, as argued in the passage, he will have no financial incentive to accept that job (his income will be the same). But if statement (C) is true and Jim takes the job, he will then be MORE likely to get a HIGHER-paying job than if he were unemployed. If he doesn't take the job, his income will definitely stay at $100 per week (in government assistance). If he takes the job, and if statement (C) is true, his income  might  increase because he is more likely to get a higher-paying job.

In this case, Jim  would  have a financial incentive to accept the job that entitles him to the supplement, so choice (C) definitely weakens the argument. True, he might not get a higher-paying job, but, taking choice (C) to be 100% accurate, "people who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed." This is enough to seriously weaken the argument of the editorial.

GMATNinjaTwo · Answer

Please note that this passage appears with slightly different answer choices in EP2. A new thread has been created to discuss that variation of the question: https://gmatclub.com/forum/editorial-in ... l#p1988124

KarishmaB · Answer

Responding to a pm:

We are looking for a financial incentive that will make people work.

D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the
yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.

What the govt defines as poverty level is immaterial. The point is that the unemployed people receive the same $400 which they will get if they take up a job which pays less than $400. They have no financial incentive to work. The fact that $400 is less than poverty line doesn't come into play since they will not get more than $400 in either case.

valentinbrr · Answer

My initial choice was (E) but during review I realized that this does not even refer to the point of a  financial  benefit so even if the "sometimes" would be removed this would be out.

St123Kt · Answer

C wins. We need an alternative advantage of the plan. C talks about the better prospect of getting employed. 
E is tempting. But the argument especially the conclusion is talking about financial incentive. E refers to the enjoyment/mental. So E is out. Also pay attention to the quantifier...sometimes..

CEdward · Answer

Hi all, I see some comments about the use of 'sometimes' in choice E. Can someone elaborate upon that a little bit more and provide a practical recommendation regarding why it makes a choice wrong?

GMATNinja 
 GMATNinja two

GMATNinja · Answer

The author concludes that "unemployed people will have no  financial  incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement."

We have to weaken this argument.

Take a look at (E):
 
(E) doesn't give us any information about  financial  incentives. Instead, it tells us about a  different  incentive to work (enjoyment!). So, (E) doesn't weaken the argument at all -- the author's conclusion about financial incentives is not impacted by another incentive to work.

Compare that to (C):
 
(C) tells us that there IS a financial incentive to work, even if you make just as much money as you would on unemployment benefits. Sure, you're not going to make more money in your  first  job, but you'll be more likely to get a higher-paying job when you apply for your  next  job.

(C) directly weakens the author's conclusion about financial incentives, so (C) is the correct answer.

Sure, it's true that words like "sometimes" can greatly impact the meaning of an answer choice, but that's not the main reason to eliminate (E).

I hope that helps!

rikinmathur · Answer

Great question because it is not always easy to understand how C weakens the argument. It is also hard to eliminate choices.

(A) The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and their families.
This strengthens the argument. If there are no taxes collected, then people will indeed have no financial incentive to accept jobs. Eliminate.

(B) Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.
Totally irrelevant here. What neighboring countries’ unemployment rates are is not helpful in understanding how the assistance to reach min wage would be helpful in Ledland. Also the question isn’t covering the amount of the minimum wage but rather how the government can help reach it.

(C) People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job seekers who are unemployed. 
This is a very interesting choice. The argument is about the people not having a financial incentive and our goal is to show that there is one. If people who are currently employed have a better chance at getting higher paying jobs, then unemployed people might have financial incentive in terms of higher future earnings. Bingo.

(D) The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.
Irrelevant. Poverty level, whatever it is, is not helpful here.

(E) People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.
You could make the argument that if people enjoy work, they might be willing to work to earn the same amount of money they would earn sitting at home receiving government assistance, a big stretch in itself. More importantly, the sometimes doesn’t really make a strong argument here for this choice. Eliminate.

C is the correct answer.

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance

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

Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance

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