In two months, the legal minimum wage in the country of Kirlandia will

Question

In two months, the legal minimum wage in the country of Kirlandia will increase from five Kirlandic dollars (KD5.00) per hour to KD5.50 per hour. Opponents of this increase have argued that the resulting rise in wages will drive the inflation rate up. In fact its impact on wages will probably be negligible, since only a very small proportion of all Kirlandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour.

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

(A) Most people in Kirlandia who are currently earning the minimum wage have been employed at their current jobs for less than a year

(B) Some firms in Kirlandia have paid workers considerably less than KD5.00 per hour, in violation of kirlandic employment regulation

(C) Many businesses hire trainees at or near the minimum wage but must reward trained workers by keeping their pay levels above the pay level of trainees.

(D) The greatest growth in Kirlandia's economy in recent years has been in those sectors where workers earn wages that tend to be much higher than the minimum wage.

(E) The current minimum wage is insufficient for a worker holding only one job to earn enough to support a family, even when working full time at that job.

GMATNinja · Accepted Answer

Kirlandia makes me think of kir royales. Ten phantom bonus points for anybody who knows how to make a kir royale without googling it.

And if you prefer your explanations in video form, check out  this YouTube CR webinar . And if you prefer written explanations, let's start with the conclusion: according to the author, the impact of the minimum wage increase (from KD5.00 to KD5.50) on wages in Kirlandia will probably be negligible. In other words, overall, wages in Kirlandia will not change much as a result of the increase.

Why not? Well, only a very small proportion of all Kirlandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour. So when the minimum wage is increased, only that small proportion will be immediately affected and see an increase in their wages. If only that small proportion sees an increase in their wages, then it seems reasonable to conclude that the overall impact will be small.

Which of the answer choices most seriously weakens this train of thought?

The author argues that the impact will be minimal since the change will only directly affect a small proportion of Kirlandic workers. This argument is the same regardless of how long those workers have been employed at their current jobs. Choice (A) does not impact the author's argument and can be eliminated.

We are specifically told that "only a very small proportion of all Kirlandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour." If SOME firms are paying considerably less than KD5.00, then the change  might  have a greater effect than the author anticipates. Then again, if those firms were violating the employment regulations before, why should we expect them to comply when the new law is passed? Choice (B) would only affect the argument if those firms were suddenly compelled to comply with the minimum wage laws. Even if they did, the impact should not be that great, since this situation only applies to SOME of an already SMALL proportion of workers. (B) doesn't look great, but hang on to it if you aren't convinced.

We know that the change will direct affect only a small proportion of workers. But what if the change  indirectly  affects other people BESIDES those included in the small proportion? The wages of those in the small proportion (i.e. trainees) will go up. But now the trainees might be making just as much as the TRAINED workers. In order to reward the trained workers, many businesses would have to raise the wages of their trained workers (to ensure that trained workers are paid more than trainees).

If this is true, then the change will affect not only the small proportion but also any trained workers whose pay levels must be kept above those of the trainees. Choice (C) clearly expands the impact of the change beyond the negligible outcome described by the author. Thus, unlike choice (B), choice (C) directly hurts the author's argument without any additional leaps or assumptions. Hang on to this one.

Again, the author reasons that the impact will be minimal since the change will only increase the wages of a small proportion of workers. If sectors where workers earn wages that tend to be much HIGHER than the minimum are experiencing the most growth, this is further evidence that the minimum wage law will be largely inconsequential. If, on the other hand, we were told that the greatest growth has been in sectors where workers earn the minimum wage, then perhaps choice (D) would work against the author's argument (by suggesting that the NUMBER of employees earning the minimum wage is steadily growing, thus expanding the impact of the new law). As written, choice (D) does not impact the author's argument and can be eliminated.

The author (who's perhaps a heartless sociopath?) is not concerned with whether the current minimum wage (or the new minimum wage, for that matter) is sufficient to support a family. In fact, choice (E) might even suggest that some of the workers included in the small proportion  currently  have to work multiple jobs and/or overtime in order to support their families. Once the minimum wage is increased, those workers could earn the same total amount working a smaller number of hours. If that were the case, this would be further evidence that inflation is unlikely (since the total amount earned by those workers would not change much, if at all). Regardless, choice (E) gives us no reason to expect that the new law will impact anyone aside from the small proportion of workers currently earning less than KD5.50. Thus, choice (E) does not affect the author's argument and can be eliminated.

Choice (C) directly weakens the author's reasoning, so it is the best answer.

bsd_lover · Answer

C - for if the minimum wage goes up, the trained employees wages might have to go up as well. Hence the argument that the impact of minimal wage increase on wages is minimal is weakened.

Sunny143 · Answer

Inflation is caused by too many dollars chasing too few goods with the resulting rise in prices. The central premise of the argument is that there wont be too many dollars out there in the market as the number of min wage workers are less in Kirlandia so the cummulative increase wont push inflation up. With this background, lets see the choices

A. Not relevant to increase money in the market.
B. This is an interesting one. Since this has gone unreported, the recent rise wont touch these folks, they will continue to get considerably less anyway.
C. If trainees get near minimum wage levels, so when the min wage levels go up, their wages will also go up. Hence this will have an effect of more money coming into the economy and driving up inflation....weakens
D. Not relevant
E. Not relevant.

C

sumanamba · Answer

Evidence: Minimum wage has been increased. Very small portion r currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hr. Inflatioin will rise.
Conclusion: Change in minmum wages will be negligible.

We need to weaken the conclusion, that the change will indeed have an effect.

C.

A. Irrelevant.
B. Irrelevant, since we r not talking about illegal workers.
C. This will actually weaken the statement, b'coz 'many' business hire tranieers, and these traineers r at the minimum wages mark.
D. This actually supports the arg
E. i think it is irrelavant. Even if it is not, it would only strengthen the arg.

Hades · Answer

C

Argument is minimum wage hike won't drive up inflation, because not everyone is getting the pay raise (only a small proportion of workers work at minimum wage).

C shows that a lot of other workers salaries are based on the minimum wage, and if it's increased, their salaries will increase as well, logically fueling inflation.

A is out of scope, we don't care long how long they've been employed for.
B is irrelevant as adding this piece of information doesn't change anything, ppl who make < minimum wage still account for a very small portion of workers.
D is tricky, it says wages have increased, but growth has as well-- hence inflation isn't likely.
E out of scope.

onedayill · Answer

If (b) is answer, then never trust questions from this source again

(b) actually strengthens the argument, (b) says that some companies ignore the minimum wage law entirely. If companies ignore it, who cares what the new minimum wage?

(c) is correct because it's the only choice that makes us think that a higher minimum wage affects not only minimum wage earners, but also higher paid employees.

Hope this help...

SaraiYaseenGMAT · Answer

onedayill is right!

Tip: The GMAT's favorite way to create confusion in strengthening/weakening questions is to create answers that achieve the opposite task!

B does indeed strengthen the conclusion that changing the minimum wage will not have an affect.

GyanOne · Answer

We need to select an answer choice that weakens the argument that the wage increase will not lead to inflation as most workers are already being paid at the higher wage level.

Choice B is incorrect because there is no guarantee that firms who operate outside the legal purview now will follow the minimum wage rule after the minimum wage is raised.

Choice C indicates this correctly. If the pay levels of trained workers must be above those of trainees, their pay must go up too. This is the best choice. It does not depend on the proportion of trainees in the workforce, or on the magnitude of difference between trainee pay levels and trained worker pay levels. After they are trained, the trainees will go to higher wages too. If these higher wages are significantly above 5.5, it will cause inflation. If they are not, and even if trainees are small proportion of the overall workforce, the trained workers will still all move up further, which will cause inflation. Either way, overall wages will rise and cause inflation.

Source of the Q?

Cares · Answer

Are you sure about answer being B?

Most definitely looks like it should be C.

We have to look for something which implies that many workers will be affected by the new minimum wage.

A) Don't care about time
B) If the companies did not comply with the law before, they will not comply with the new wage either
 C) If you raise the level of minimum wage and you have to keep trained workers higher than minimum wage then it will have an effect 
D) Don't care about other sectors
E) Minimum wage being enough or not is irrelevant

megha_2709 · Answer

Hi,

Thank you for posting your explanation but I am confused here, it says in argument that opponents of this policy are saying that inflation rate would go up , are we weakening opponents argument or opposing the policy over here ,because C is says that it would drive up the inflation hence supporting the opponent argument.

Would really appreciate your help on this.

Thanks
Megha

Abhishek009 · Answer

Option (C) states -

Trainees = Minimum wage ( KD5.50 per hour )
  Trained workers = Above Minimum wages of KD5.50 per hour

The conclusion states that -

But from option (C) we can see that both skilled ( trained) and unskilled (trainee ) will be receiving hourly salary of KD 5.50 or more, thus it is affecting the entire workforce...

Hence option (C) is the correct answer choice as it is a weakener !!

Rise in wages will occur on a small scale   -------> Won't drive up the rate of Inflation

We are attempting to weaken the argument that Rise in wages will occur on a large scale and will drive up inflation ( As a result )

gmatlbs · Answer

Can someone please explain this question in detail. Esp option C and D.

sayantanc2k · Answer

Option C:
Currently the trainees get KD 5 per hour and the trained workers get KD 6 (say) per hour. The difference KD 1 is the  reward  of the skilled workers. If the minimum pay increases to KD 5.5, the trainees will be required to be paid KD 5.5. In order to maintain the same  reward  for the trained workers, the wage of the trained workers will also be needed to be increased to KD 6.5. Therefore increasing the minimum wage will have a direct effect on the wage of trainees and an indirect effect on the wage of the trained workers, and therefore the impact will not be negligible, as the argument claims. Hence C weakens the argument.

Option D:
If we can correlate growth in economy with number of workers, we can say that the number of workers has increased in those sectors in which the salaries are much higher than the minimum 5.5 per hour. Having many employees whose salaries are say KD 15 per hour, does not weaken the argument. In a way it is actually in line the argument that increase in minimum wage would not affect the economy, because for many employees wages will not be needed to be revised as their wages are already very high.

kimrani · Answer

In two months, the legal minimum wage in the country of Kirlandia will increase from five Kirlandic dollars(KD5.00) Per hour to KD5.50 per hour. =>  Background info 
Opponents of this increase have argued that the resulting rise in wages will drive the inflation rate up. =>  Counterpoint 
In fact its impact on wages will probably be negligible, =>  Conclusion 
since only a very small proportion of all Kirlandic workers is currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour. =>  Premise supporting Conclusion

What would weaken this argument? It will be the one that questions the Premise that supports Conclusion. 
Premise says only a small portion of workers got paid less than 5.50. 
=> Only B questions as it says that there exist firms that violate employment regulations by paying less than 5.50. This violation indicates that Premise underestimates the real life that there are more than a small portion of workers got paid lower than 5.50. 
=>  B is the answer

--
Please give a kudos if you find this post useful.

s8kadian · Answer

In two months, the legal minimum wage in the country of Kirlandia will increase from five Kirlandic dollars (KD5.00) per hour to KD5.50 per hour. Opponents of this increase have argued that the resulting rise in wages will drive the inflation rate up. In fact its impact on wages will probably be negligible, since only a very small proportion of all Kirlandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour.

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

(A) Most people in Kirlandia who are currently earning the minimum wage have been employed at their current jobs for less than a year --   not relevant

(B) Some firms in Kirlandia have paid workers considerably less than KD5.00 per hour, in violation of kirlandic employment regulation --   specific issue - not enough info. --firms may continue to pay less

(C) Many businesses hire trainees at or near the minimum wage but must reward trained workers by keeping their pay levels above the pay level of trainees. --   everyone's pay will be impacted

(D) The greatest growth in Kirlandia's economy in recent years has been in those sectors where workers earn wages that tend to be much higher than the minimum wage. ---   specific information -- does not impact argument

(E) The current minimum wage is insufficient for a worker holding only one job to earn enough to support a family, even when working full time at that job. --   specific issue -- does not impact argument

gmatexam439 · Answer

In two months, the legal minimum wage in the country of Kirlandia will increase from five Kirlandic dollars (KD5.00) per hour to KD5.50 per hour. Opponents of this increase have argued that the resulting rise in wages will drive the inflation rate up. In fact its impact on wages will probably be negligible, since only a very small proportion of all Kirlandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour.

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

(A) Most people in Kirlandia who are currently earning the minimum wage have been employed at their current jobs for less than a year - Time frame of employment is out of scope

(B) Some firms in Kirlandia have paid workers considerably less than KD5.00 per hour, in violation of kirlandic employment regulation - Some firms will always exist. Besides, this will strengthen the argument because if the firms have violated the law there is no reason as to why these firms won't violate the law again

(C) Many businesses hire trainees at or near the minimum wage but must reward trained workers by keeping their pay levels above the pay level of trainees. - Correct. If the pay of existing skilled workers will increase greater than KD5.5 then the inflation might go up

(D) The greatest growth in Kirlandia's economy in recent years has been in those sectors where workers earn wages that tend to be much higher than the minimum wage. - Sectors in which growth has been maximum are out of scope

(E) The current minimum wage is insufficient for a worker holding only one job to earn enough to support a family, even when working full time at that job. - Clearly out of scope

ramya1 · Answer

What is the "argument" referring to - increase in wages or the inflation ? question is not clear

OC2910 · Answer

The BID i have mentioned : is the whats the e argument wants to covey or boil it down. The author says that minimum wage rise will have no positive effect rather it would lead to inflation and other negative effects.

Rest  GMATNinja  sir has explained the question beautifully in his video and post

Posted from my mobile device

GMATNinja · Answer

Thank you for the kind words,  StrugglingGmat2910 !

In case this helps: the question is concerned with the author's argument, not the opponents' argument. The author references the opponents' position in making his/her case, but we are concerned with the  overall  argument of the passage.

Although we are given that some opponents have arrived at a certain conclusion, we are not actually told  how  the opponents arrive at that conclusion. In other words, we don't really know the opponents' argument, only their conclusion.

The author concludes that the impact of the minimum wage increase (from KD5.00 to KD5.50) on wages in Kirlandia will probably be negligible. So make sure you understand how the author arrives at that conclusion, and then look for something that weakens the author's argument.

I hope that helps!

In two months, the legal minimum wage in the country of Kirlandia will

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

In two months, the legal minimum wage in the country of Kirlandia will

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