|
|
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.
25 May 2010, 02:58
Kudos
Bookmarks
N
Be sure to select an answer first to save it in the Error Log before revealing the correct answer (OA)!
Difficulty:
(N/A)
Question Stats:
0% (00:00) correct
100%
(03:35)
wrong
based on 3
sessions
History
Date
Time
Result
Not Attempted Yet
Please expain with your reasons.
Attachment:
Delmonte.JPG
Archived Topic
Hi there,
This topic has been closed and archived due to inactivity or violation of community quality standards. No more replies are possible here.
Where to now? Join ongoing discussions on thousands of quality questions in our Critical Reasoning (CR) Forum
Still interested in this question? Check out the "Best Topics" block below for a better discussion on this exact question, as well as several more related questions.
Thank you for understanding, and happy exploring!
25 May 2010, 08:34
Kudos
Bookmarks
Argument = Mayor caused more new jobs than old, and new jobs had higher average pay than previous job, therefore the pay average has increased during the Mayor's tenure.
This one is tricky.
A) This is a bit confusing since it talks about 3 years but we don't really know how long the Mayor has been in office. Furthermore it seems to imply that pay associated with the Mayor is lower. The confusion and implication don't look good.
B) This suggests that the purported increase in pay might be attributed to a natural increase of pay rather than the Mayor's efforts. Some of his fans might say that he's the reason the 10 year low ended... but that's not substantiated. Altogether it doesn't do much because it doesn't mention growth (for all we know it's STILL at a 10 year low and the advert is just propaganda). I am tempted by this one but I just can't see it supporting the argument that well.
C) This is a bit of a "so what" answer. Nothing to do with growth of pay.
D) I like D the best but I am really not too sure. At least with this answer there's a bit of mathematical theory involved. If the jobs that are disappearing were all close the general average then it implies that the job loss is NOT affecting the average... but it still says nothing to if the new jobs are actually helping it go up or down. This at least provides a basis on which to defend against the notion that "job loss is hurting our average."
E) Comparing the city to suburbs seems out of scope.
Very curious to see OA. My confidence in D) is like 60%
It should be fun to retroactively reason afterwards if it's not D.
This one is tricky.
A) This is a bit confusing since it talks about 3 years but we don't really know how long the Mayor has been in office. Furthermore it seems to imply that pay associated with the Mayor is lower. The confusion and implication don't look good.
B) This suggests that the purported increase in pay might be attributed to a natural increase of pay rather than the Mayor's efforts. Some of his fans might say that he's the reason the 10 year low ended... but that's not substantiated. Altogether it doesn't do much because it doesn't mention growth (for all we know it's STILL at a 10 year low and the advert is just propaganda). I am tempted by this one but I just can't see it supporting the argument that well.
C) This is a bit of a "so what" answer. Nothing to do with growth of pay.
D) I like D the best but I am really not too sure. At least with this answer there's a bit of mathematical theory involved. If the jobs that are disappearing were all close the general average then it implies that the job loss is NOT affecting the average... but it still says nothing to if the new jobs are actually helping it go up or down. This at least provides a basis on which to defend against the notion that "job loss is hurting our average."
E) Comparing the city to suburbs seems out of scope.
Very curious to see OA. My confidence in D) is like 60%
It should be fun to retroactively reason afterwards if it's not D.
25 May 2010, 09:42
Kudos
Bookmarks
I would go with A.
The conclusion states that "average paycheck has been getting steadily bigger". Thus, A provides a comparison of the mayor's earlier tenure pays and after 3 years, the paychecks have steadily increased.
The conclusion states that "average paycheck has been getting steadily bigger". Thus, A provides a comparison of the mayor's earlier tenure pays and after 3 years, the paychecks have steadily increased.
