Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont's critics complain about the

Question

Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont's critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont's leadership. Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than were eliminated, but the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office. So there can be no question that throughout Delmont's tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

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

(A) The average pay for jobs created in the city during the past three years was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmont's tenure.

(B) Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.

(C) Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.

(D) The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.

(E) The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.

ID: 500289

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

The conclusion of this political ad is that "there can be no question that throughout {Mayor Delmont's} tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger." Before we look for an answer choice that strengthens the argument, let's make sure we clearly understand the ad's reasoning:

We know that some jobs were lost in the city under Delmont's leadership. The ad does not dispute this fact, and the mayor's critics complain about this fact. 
 The ad responds to this criticism by noting that more jobs were created than were eliminated. So there was actually a net INCREASE in the  number  of jobs while Delmont was mayor. 
 Furthermore, the average pay for those new jobs was HIGHER than the average pay for jobs citywide each year while Delmont was mayor.

Notice that the ad is comparing the average pay of the NEW jobs to the average pay of jobs citywide. The ad is NOT comparing the average pay of the new jobs to the average pay of the jobs that were eliminated. But if we don't know how much we are LOSING (i.e. the average pay of the jobs that were eliminated), how can we be sure that we have a net increase in average pay overall? Sure, the NUMBER of jobs is increasing, but if the new jobs pay less, on average, than the lost jobs, the result would be a net DECREASE in average citywide pay.

The ad concludes that the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger throughout the mayor's tenure. We need an answer choice that strengthens this argument:

We know that the average pay for the new jobs was higher than the average pay for jobs citywide each year since Delmont took office. Choice (A) simply tells us that the average pay for the new jobs created during the past three years was higher than the average pay for the new jobs created earlier in the mayor's tenure. So the average pay for the new jobs went up, but what about the average paycheck citywide? Has that been increasing as well? What if the average pay of the LOST jobs exceeded the average pay of the NEW jobs each year? We still can't determine whether the OVERALL average increased or decreased, so (A) doesn't strengthen (or weaken) the argument.

The average pay was at a ten-year low when Delmont took office, but what happened AFTER he took office? For example, say that Delmont's term began in 2007. Average pay may have steadily DECLINED from 1997 to 2007, so in 2007 average pay would have been at a ten-year low. Did the average pay then increase or did it continue to decrease? Choice (B) doesn't tell us either way, so it doesn't strengthen or weaken the argument. Eliminate (B).

We already know that there has been a net increase in the NUMBER of jobs since the mayor has taken office. This is true regardless of whether choice (C) is true. Either way, we still don't know whether the average paycheck in the city has increased or decreased because we don't know anything about the average pay of the lost jobs. (C) doesn't impact the argument and can be eliminated.

The ad compares the average pay of the NEW jobs to the average pay of jobs citywide. But how does the average pay of the new jobs compare to the average pay of the jobs that were lost? What if the average pay of the jobs lost was HIGHER than the average pay of the new jobs? In that case, there would have been a net DECREASE in average pay citywide, contradicting the conclusion of the ad.

Choice (D) assures us that this is NOT the case. The average pay of the lost jobs was roughly equal to the average pay for jobs citywide. We already know that the average pay of the new jobs was greater than the average pay for jobs citywide. Given statement (D), we now know that the average pay of the new jobs must also have been greater than the average pay of the lost jobs. Choice (D) definitely strengthens the argument.

We only care about what happened to the average paycheck  in this city . How the average pay for jobs in the city compares to the average pay for jobs in the surrounding suburbs does not tell us whether the average paycheck in the city has decreased or increased. Choice (E) is not relevant to the argument in this ad and can be eliminated.

Choice (D) is the best answer.

gluon · Answer

The answer is  D .

grumpyoldman · Answer

This is a well designed question. It combines arithmetic (and the basic formula for an average) with subtle gaps in the argument's reasoning. Real managers in real businesses often make the kinds of mistakes that are built into the argument, so this is not just an academic exercise.

I think the most important thing to notice is that the conclusion is about average pay for ALL the jobs in the city, while the evidence tells us only about the number of jobs CREATED and LOST, and about the average pay for the jobs CREATED. It tells us nothing about the jobs which simply stayed there, which are probably the majority of jobs. It also doesn't tell us anything about the average pay for the jobs which were LOST.

So there are major holes in the argument's arithmetic. The average pay for the jobs created was greater than the average pay for ALL jobs, but this increase in total pay, whatever it is, was offset to an unknown degree by the total pay for the jobs LOST. If the average pay for the lost jobs was higher than the average pay for the new jobs (which is entirely possible, given the evidence), then the NET change in total pay divided by the NET change in jobs would be less than the previous average pay for all jobs. That would make average pay for all jobs go down, not up.

Another hole is that the evidence does not prevent the average pay for jobs that are NOT created or lost from going down over time. Even if the average pay for lost jobs was NOT higher than the average pay for new jobs, a decline in the average pay for the "stable" jobs could more than offset that change.

So to strengthen the argument, we need to plug one of these holes. Choice D is correct because it plugs the first hole: If the average pay for the lost jobs was equal to the average pay for all jobs, then it can't be higher than the average pay for the new jobs -- because the evidence tells us that the new jobs paid better (on average) than all jobs.

Note that (as often happens with strengthening questions) the correct answer doesn't prove the argument, but just IMproves it. In this case, D plugs one of the gaps. But because it still leaves us not knowing whether average pay for "stable" jobs remained the same, it does not prove the conclusion.

Minheequang · Answer

Yeah IMO  D

Mayor Delmont’s critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont’s leadership. Yet the fact is that not only were more jobs created than were eliminated, but the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide every year since Delmont took office. So there can be no question that throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

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

A. The average pay for jobs created in the city during the past three years was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmont’s tenure -->   three years  is an indefinite time period and this just mentions about average pay for jobs created, not average pay for all jobs, so eliminate 
B. Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office --> no influence 
C. Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again -->  the same like B, too far to have an influence to the argument 
D. The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide -->  the best. Imagine, A is average pay for job created, B is for job eliminated, C for job citywide. At the beginning of the year, the average pay for all jobs in the city are  B + C ; at the end of the year, because a number of jobs are eliminated (their average pay are B) and a number of job are created (their average are A), the average pay for all jobs in the city are  A +C . Therefore, because A>C and B=C, (A+C) - (B+C) > 0 --> at the end end of the year, the average paycheck of all jobs in the city is bigger than it was at the beginning of the year. And this fact continues year after year (in the Delmont's tenure) because every jobs created in any year will have their average pays higher than that of jobs created in the year before but eliminated in that year. 
E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city --> suburb is irrelevant

IanStewart · Answer

The answer here is most definitely not C; it's D.

The argument in the passage isn't airtight. Sure, we know that each year jobs are added with 'above average' salaries. But if the overall average salary has been trending downward (either because high-paying jobs were eliminated, or because wages were being cut at existing jobs) the newly added jobs might not be enough to ensure that 'the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.' D at least addresses one of those concerns: the jobs that have been eliminated were not especially highly paid.

C is completely irrelevant; it's definitely not the right answer.

patrickwestoo · Answer

How Come a is wrong? If the unemployment is bigger than it obviously can't be true! But how can they state something that is obviously written otherwise in the text?

https://gmatclub.com/static/posted_from.png     Posted from    GMAT ToolKit

DexDee · Answer

Even if A is assumed to be right, it does not affect the  paycheck . Paycheck is only influenced by those who are employed.. therefore, we are looking for scenarios which would increase or decrease the average salary. Option A will have no bearing on the average salary. If the question had asked for employment rate, then A would have mattered.

The conclusion says  "throughout Delmont’s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been
getting steadily bigger".  To weaken this, we need to show that the net pay for all those who employed has come down. As per C, the average pay for the new jobs created is  lesser  than the average pay for the jobs that were eliminated; this fits our bill!

ksp · Answer

The issue around here is the average paycheck. The argument says that the average pay has been increasing since the mayor took charge.

The option C states that the overall average pay has been brought down by eliminating workers with high average pay. So, the overall average is being reduced. The new workers' average pay is less than the pay of the average pay of the eliminated jobs. So this clearly weakens the argument by saying that the average paychecks has actually decreased overall and only the average pay of the new employees whose salary is lesser than the average salary of the eliminated fellows is growing since the mayor took charge.

Hope it clarifies

mikemcgarry · Answer

Dear idinuv , I'm happy to respond. :-)

First of all, from what I can tell, when fanatico posted this question, he posted the wrong answer as the OA. I found what I believe is the source online, and the source says OA = (D) , which is eminently reasonable. For some reason, this question is all over the web with the wrong answer, and of course, that stirs up all sorts of discussion --- "how is it that (C) strengthens the argument?" Well, it doesn't, because (D) is the answer. The advertisement tells us that, during Delmont's tenure, average pay in the city has been " getting steadily bigger ." We want to strengthen that. Here's my analysis of the answer choices: A. The average pay for jobs created in the city during the past three years was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmont’s tenure. Well, hmmm. This is consistent with the argument certainly, but not necessarily a strengthener. Suppose the average pay of the new jobs over the past six years, consecutively, was: $40K, $35K, $30K, $70K, $65K, $60K. Then, the most recent three years definitely have a higher average than the first three years, but this pattern does not indicate "getting steadily bigger" each year. This statement could be a strengthener, but it doesn't have to be. This is not correct. B. Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office. Again, this would be consistent with the claim: the fact that we started so low does suggest there's nowhere to go but up. BUT, does it mean that average pay citywide steadily increased in each of Delmont's six years in office? Maybe, maybe not. This statement also could be a strengthener, but it doesn't have to be. This is not correct. C. Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again. If Delmont added some high paying jobs, and then eliminated those same high paying jobs, that would cause the average to go up, and then down. This would weaken the argument: in fact, it's a very cogent weakener. BUT, we are looking for a strengthener. This is incorrect. D. The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide . The jobs added were above this average, and so if the jobs eliminated were, roughly, equal to this average, then what is added is always higher than what is subtracted, and the average increases steadily. This is correct. E. The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city. We don't care about the suburbs. That's irrelevant. This is incorrect. That's why (D) has to be the answer, and it is the OA of the source. Mike :-)

prasi55 · Answer

The argument says that more jobs were created than were eliminated. The argument later concludes that the average pay check in the city has gone up. For the conclusion to hold, the average pay for these new jobs must be greater than the average pay for the jobs that were eliminated -- all other things being equal.

The argument also says that the average pay for the new jobs is higher than the average pay for jobs citywide (Fact 2). Now we do not know whether the average pay for the eliminated jobs was higher than, less than, or equal to the average pay for jobs citywide. If we can somehow guarantee that the average pay for the eliminated jobs was less than or equal to the average pay for jobs citywide, then we can properly conclude that the average pay for the new jobs is higher than the average pay for the eliminated jobs -- thus strengthening the conclusion.

D guarantees this.

--Prasad

JarvisR · Answer

Political Advertisement:
Mayor Delmontâ€™s critics  complain about the jobs that were lost  in the city under Delmontâ€™s leadership.

Yet the fact is that not only were  more jobs created than were eliminated , but  the average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide  every year since Delmont took office.

Conc: So there can be no question that  throughout Delmontâ€™s tenure the average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

-------(Avg pay)----(job pay between highest and average pay job) ------( highest pay)----------- 
What if the removed jobs were the highly paid jobs than the ones that have been added. In that case, it's true that the newly added job pay more than average but city's average paycheck has has go down.

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

(A) The average pay for jobs created in the city during the past three years was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmontâ€™s tenure. 
>> Ignore. There can be multiple possibilities and hence not sufficient to evaluate the claim. May be the Avg pay of job added last year was lower than the average pay of city etc.
(B) Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office. 
>> similar to A. Ignore.

(C) Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmontâ€™s tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
>> Ignore.

(D) The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmontâ€™s tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide. 
>> In line with our reasoning.

(E) The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.
>> Comparison is between avg pay of added jobs to that of city's jobs. ignore.

sukanyar · Answer

Should be D. Argument is stating that the average pay for "new jobs" has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide.

Conclusion is about average paycheck "in this city" getting steadily bigger.

On the basis of average pay for new jobs, if the argument is concluding about average pay for "city" getting bigger, then what strengthens the argument is that average pay for jobs eliminated in the city has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.

If this is not true and average pay for jobs eliminated in the city has significantly higher than the average pay for jobs citywide, then addition of new jobs at higher than the average pay for jobs citywide, would not necessarily push the average for the city higher.

arvind910619 · Answer

Hi  mikemcgarry

How are you ?

Please help me on this one

Why A is not the correct answer even though it mentions that the jobs that were created had greater average pay in since last three years .
I think the time period mentioned in A put us off . It might have happened that before last three years Mayor had a dismal performance in terms of job creation.

D on the other hand talks about jobs that were eliminated had average pay that were roughly equal to the average pay for jobs citywide.
It mentions that both pay ere roughly equal then how can this option be out answer ?

Regards,
Arvind

sukanyar · Answer

Yes Arvind. So, consider the following pieces of information:

i) The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide (according to option D). 
ii) Average pay for these new jobs has been higher than the average pay for jobs citywide (as per the passage)

So, if you combine these two pieces of info, we can conclude that average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

For example, suppose there are 100 people and average pay right now is $10.

Suppose 5 jobs were eliminated. As per option D, average pay for jobs eliminated = $5.

Average pay for 5 "new jobs" that were created in place on eliminated jobs = $7 (Average pay for these new jobs is higher than $5, as per the passage)

So, new average = (100*10 - 5*5 + 5*7)/100 = $10.12

So, old average was $10, new average is $10.12.

This proves that average paycheck in this city has been getting steadily bigger.

MagooshExpert · Answer

Hi arvind910619 ! Carolyn from Magoosh here - I can step in for Mike

It looks like GMATNinja has already given a great explanation for this: If you're still confused by something here, let me know and I'll be happy to explain this further!

-Carolyn

ScottTargetTestPrep · Answer

The argument concludes that since the average pay for new jobs was greater than the average pay for all jobs citywide, paychecks must have been getting bigger. This reasoning makes sense because the greater pay of the new jobs would pull up the average pay of all jobs.

One thing to notice about this argument is that it contains information that does not seem directly relevant to the conclusion. All we need in order to arrive at the conclusion is the information that the average pay of new jobs has been higher than the average pay of all jobs citywide, but the argument includes the information that some jobs have been eliminated. Perhaps this information will somehow figure into how the argument can be strengthened.

Let’s go to the answer choices and find out.

(A) The average pay for jobs created in the city during the past three years was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmont's tenure.

This choice could be tempting because it seems to provide information that indicates that paychecks are growing. However, this choice does not show that paychecks citywide are growing. It shows only that the pay for new jobs grew. The pay for new jobs could go up year after year, and yet other forces could simultaneously drive down the average pay in the city.

(B) Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.

The fact that average pay was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office does not mean that it increased after he took office. It could have decreased further while he was in office.

(C) Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.

The support for the conclusion that paychecks got bigger is that pay for new jobs is higher than average pay citywide, and thus the higher pay at new jobs drove up the average pay citywide. So, since the creation of new jobs is the cause of the increase in pay, the elimination of some of the new jobs clearly does not reinforce the conclusion that pay increased.

(D) The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.

This choice strengthens the argument by addressing a possible issue.

The passage indicates that not only were jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont’s tenure, but also some jobs were lost. The argument then concludes that since the new jobs pay more than the citywide average, the creation of the new jobs resulted in an increase in the citywide average.

There is an issue, however. What if the average pay for the jobs lost was greater than the average pay for the jobs gained? If the jobs lost paid more than the jobs gained, it could be that average pay in the city went down rather than up.

This choice addresses that issue by making clear that the average pay of the jobs lost was the same as the average pay citywide. So, the loss of those jobs did not negatively affect the average pay citywide.

By addressing that issue and eliminating the possibility that average pay citywide was negatively affected via the loss of some jobs, this choice strengthens the conclusion that average pay increased rather than decreased.

(E) The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.

The conclusion is not about whether pay in the city is higher than pay elsewhere. It is that pay in the city is higher than previously. Since this choice does not provide information that indicates that pay in the city increased, it does not strengthen the argument.

The correct answer is D.

TarPhi · Answer

The argument concludes that since the average pay for new jobs was greater than the average pay for all jobs citywide, paychecks must have been getting bigger. This reasoning makes sense because the greater pay of the new jobs would pull up the average pay of all jobs.

One thing to notice about this argument is that it contains information that does not seem directly relevant to the conclusion. All we need in order to arrive at the conclusion is the information that the average pay of new jobs has been higher than the average pay of all jobs citywide, but the argument includes the information that some jobs have been eliminated. Perhaps this information will somehow figure into how the argument can be strengthened.

Answer is D

LIBERTYRodP · Answer

STRENGTHEN

Pre-thinking : We must strengthen that the "paycheck has been getting steadily bugger" based on the fact that the jobs created paid higher, in average, to those from the previous years.

Theory: Here, the keyword is the word AVERAGE. We must understand that we can increase an average in two ways:

1. Eliminating elements that are below the average 
2. Adding elements that are above the average

In this case, we must know how the average pay for the new jobs created compares to the average pay for the jobs that were eliminated. For example, if during Delmont's tenure tons of jobs were created that were   just a little bit   above the average for the previous years, but the jobs that were eliminated were   much higher   than the average for last years, then it could be that, in fact, the detractors are right.

(A) The average pay for jobs created in the city during the past three years was higher than the average pay for jobs created in the city earlier in Mayor Delmont's tenure.   ----------- This does not strengthen, in any case it weaken the conclusion, as it states that during the major's tenure jobs created paid less, on average, than those in the last three years.

(B) Average pay in the city was at a ten-year low when Mayor Delmont took office.  -------------------- It does not say anything about the average pay of the jobs that were eliminated

(C) Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.   -------------------- It does not help in comparing the average pay for new jobs created to the ones eliminated from last year.

(D) The average pay for jobs eliminated in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure has been roughly equal every year to the average pay for jobs citywide.   ---------- CORRECT. The average pay for jobs eliminated was the same as the average pay for jobs citywide, and the premises in the argument state that the new jobs had, on average, a higher pay than the jobs citywide.

(E) The average pay for jobs in the city is currently higher than it is for jobs in the suburbs surrounding the city.   ------- Out of scope. The comparison with counties outside the city is not relevant.

KUDOS!!!

mSKR · Answer

Hi Sir GMATNinja  . This question really need your expertise suggestion.

I read word by word and calculated mathematically but still i get C answer again and again and D is rejected again and again.

Please check why and HELP!@ GMATNinja 
 
Your explanation:

My Explanation : 
I think in the statement : Some of the jobs created in the city during Mayor Delmont's tenure have in the meantime been eliminated again.
It talks about the same JOB that were created. IT means the average salary of LOST jobs was higher than average .  Hence the average would REDUCE for SURE.

Mathematically, 
Before number of jobs = X (100 ) and average salary U( 100$)
New jobs created = Y ( 50) and average salary V (>U)( 200$)
Average = 133.33$

New jobs lost = Z(10) and average salary V (>U)( 200$)
New new average= / (100+50-10)= 20000-5000/100 = 128.5$

Average SALARY IS DECREASED.

Hence STRENGTHEN

Your explanation:

My Explanation:  
FINAL average would remain SAME( because average LOST == average CREATED)
Jobs lost but not lost jobs of higher salary.
It means: 
Before number of jobs = X (100 ) and average salary U( 100$)
New jobs created = Y ( 50) and average salary V (>U)( 200$)
New average = 133.33$
Lost jobs = 50 and average salary 133.33 lost
New new average= / (100+50-50)= 20000-5000/100 = 133.33$
 Average salary REMAIN SAME.

Hence D only says it WOULD NOT INCREASE. BUT C proves REDUCE. 
SO C is ahead of D.

hence final answer should be C.

Someone please help, i want to why am i wrong.  GMATNinja   GMATNinjaTwo   nightblade354   mira93   eakabuah 
Please check sir if you are available.  ScottTargetTestPrep   MagooshExpert   IanStewart   mikemcgarry

Anyone's help would be APPRECIABLE.

Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont's critics complain about the

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

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont's critics complain about the

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