Check GMAT Club Decision Tracker for the Latest School Decision Releases https://gmatclub.com/AppTrack

 It is currently 23 May 2017, 21:30

### 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

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

# Events & Promotions

###### Events & Promotions in June
Open Detailed Calendar

# With a record number of new companies starting up in

Author Message
TAGS:

### Hide Tags

SVP
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 1520
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 817 [0], given: 1

With a record number of new companies starting up in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2008, 11:19
00:00

Difficulty:

(N/A)

Question Stats:

42% (02:09) correct 58% (01:41) wrong based on 14 sessions

### HideShow timer Statistics

With a record number of new companies starting up in Derderia and with previously established companies adding many jobs, a record number of new jobs were created last year in the Derderian economy. This year, previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year. Therefore, unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

a) Each year, new companies starting up create more new jobs overall than do previously established companies.

b) Companies established last year will not add a greater number of jobs overall this year than they did last year.

c) This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.

d) This year, the overall number of jobs created by previously established companies will be less than the overall number of jobs lost at those companies.

e) The number of jobs created in the Derderian economy last year was substantially larger than the number of jobs lost last year.

Thanks!
If you have any questions
New!
Manager
Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 80
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 2 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2008, 11:50
IMO D
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1409
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 388 [1] , given: 1

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2008, 12:14
1
KUDOS
tarek99 wrote:
With a record number of new companies starting up in Derderia and with previously established companies adding many jobs, a record number of new jobs were created last year in the Derderian economy. This year, previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year. Therefore, unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

a) Each year, new companies starting up create more new jobs overall than do previously established companies.

If they do so, it is possible that D will have more jobs created this year but our conclusion says otherwise.

b) Companies established last year will not add a greater number of jobs overall this year than they did last year.

Isn't this already stated in the stimulus?

c) This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.

IMO, Correct. Negate this. New Companies will provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year. So There is a chance that the new jobs this year will break the last year's record. If we look at the stimulus it reaches the conclusion that total number of jobs created will be less than last year based on the lesser number of jobs created by established companies. So the missing piece is the new start ups will not hire massively to set a new record.

d) This year, the overall number of jobs created by previously established companies will be less than the overall number of jobs lost at those companies.

Unrelated. we are not talking about the net jobs and whether the net jobs (created-lost) is positive or negative

e) The number of jobs created in the Derderian economy last year was substantially larger than the number of jobs lost last year.

Unrelated.

Thanks!

I say C
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 818
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2008, 12:19
tarek99 wrote:
With a record number of new companies starting up in Derderia and with previously established companies adding many jobs, a record number of new jobs were created last year in the Derderian economy. This year, previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year. Therefore, unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

a) Each year, new companies starting up create more new jobs overall than do previously established companies.

b) Companies established last year will not add a greater number of jobs overall this year than they did last year.

c) This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.

d) This year, the overall number of jobs created by previously established companies will be less than the overall number of jobs lost at those companies.

e) The number of jobs created in the Derderian economy last year was substantially larger than the number of jobs lost last year.

Thanks!

unless a record number of companies start up this year derderia will not be breaking the record for new jobs from last year because previously established companies will not be adding new jobs

this argument relies on the assumption that the record number of companies that start up will create more jobs than ever before (just because the company starts up doesnt mean it creates more jobs.

ill go with A
VP
Joined: 05 Jul 2008
Posts: 1409
Followers: 39

Kudos [?]: 388 [0], given: 1

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2008, 12:58
bigtreezl wrote:
unless a record number of companies start up this year derderia will not be breaking the record for new jobs from last year because previously established companies will not be adding new jobs

this argument relies on the assumption that the record number of companies that start up will create more jobs than ever before (just because the company starts up doesnt mean it creates more jobs.

ill go with A

But out conclusion is that D will not break the record created last year. A says that there is a chance that record will be broken. C says that even if record number of companies are started and they dont make up substantially for what is lost from non hiring in established companies. Then we will still have the conclusion that record will not be broken.
Director
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 818
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 73 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2008, 13:23
icandy wrote:
bigtreezl wrote:
unless a record number of companies start up this year derderia will not be breaking the record for new jobs from last year because previously established companies will not be adding new jobs

this argument relies on the assumption that the record number of companies that start up will create more jobs than ever before (just because the company starts up doesnt mean it creates more jobs.

ill go with A

But out conclusion is that D will not break the record created last year. A says that there is a chance that record will be broken. C says that even if record number of companies are started and they dont make up substantially for what is lost from non hiring in established companies. Then we will still have the conclusion that record will not be broken.

I was torn btw A and C, but
the conclusion says "unless a record number...." so even if you have a record number of new start ups, the assumption is that these start ups will create a record number of jobs.
Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 117
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 109 [4] , given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2008, 15:44
4
KUDOS

This one tastes like a GMAT question, although the waiter came along and sprinkled plenty of freshly ground LSAT on top. If we put the conclusion into a more normal grammatical order (which does NOT change its logical meaning!!), it becomes "Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created unless a record number of companies start up this year." Logically, the structure "not A unless B" means exactly the same thing as "If A, then B" (one of the useful points we teach in the Kaplan LSAT course).

So the conclusion actually means "If Derderia breaks its record for new jobs created, a record number of companies must have started up", or, contrapositively, "If a record number of companies do not start up, Derderia will not break its record."

What's the evidence? Only two facts: New jobs are created by previously established companies adding jobs and by new companies starting up; and this year's previously established companies are not going to add as many jobs as last year's established companies did.

What is missing? In order to prove the conclusion, we need to prove that if the evidence is true and IF a record number of companies do not start up, then the TOTAL number of new jobs created this year will be fewer than last year. The evidence tells us that the established companies will create fewer jobs. In order to show that the total number of new jobs will be smaller, we also need to know that the startups will create fewer jobs.

The "if" part of the conclusion tells us that there will be fewer startup COMPANIES -- but that is not what we need. We need fewer JOBS. Therefore, the missing assumption is that fewer startup COMPANIES necessarily means fewer JOBS. Answer choice C guarantees that this will be true, and so it is correct.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Manager
Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 104
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 4 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2008, 22:16
Clear case of (C)
_________________

Kick GMAT ass

Senior Manager
Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 295
Location: Bangalore, India
Schools: R1:Cornell, Yale, NYU. R2: Haas, MIT, Ross
Followers: 4

Kudos [?]: 45 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

27 Oct 2008, 23:19
tarek99 wrote:
With a record number of new companies starting up in Derderia and with previously established companies adding many jobs, a record number of new jobs were created last year in the Derderian economy. This year, previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year. Therefore, unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

a) Each year, new companies starting up create more new jobs overall than do previously established companies.

b) Companies established last year will not add a greater number of jobs overall this year than they did last year.

c) This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.

d) This year, the overall number of jobs created by previously established companies will be less than the overall number of jobs lost at those companies.

e) The number of jobs created in the Derderian economy last year was substantially larger than the number of jobs lost last year.

Thanks!

Conclusion: Therefore, unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created.
New jobs must NOT be created by some alternate way.

The conclusion talks about the number of companies .

For Derdia to break its record for new jobs created and the number of companies to start up this year to be atleast equal to last year, the number of jobs created per company should be more.

Derdia break its record for new jobs:
Last year 4 companies 3 jobs per company= 12 jobs
1. Increase in number of companies and same number of jobs = 6 companies and 3 jobs per company = 18 jobs(Record Broken)Already stated in Conclusion
OR
2.Same number of companies and increase in number of jobs = 4 companies and 5 jobs per company = 20 jobs
(Record Broken) Alternate way mentioned in C
Manager
Joined: 14 Oct 2008
Posts: 160
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 59 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

28 Oct 2008, 00:11
Agree with the explanations for C.
Again tarek whats the QA ?
VP
Joined: 15 Jul 2004
Posts: 1457
Schools: Wharton (R2 - submitted); HBS (R2 - submitted); IIMA (admitted for 1 year PGPX)
Followers: 22

Kudos [?]: 195 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

29 Oct 2008, 08:47
grumpyoldman wrote:

This one tastes like a GMAT question, although the waiter came along and sprinkled plenty of freshly ground LSAT on top. If we put the conclusion into a more normal grammatical order (which does NOT change its logical meaning!!), it becomes "Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created unless a record number of companies start up this year." Logically, the structure "not A unless B" means exactly the same thing as "If A, then B" (one of the useful points we teach in the Kaplan LSAT course).

So the conclusion actually means "If Derderia breaks its record for new jobs created, a record number of companies must have started up", or, contrapositively, "If a record number of companies do not start up, Derderia will not break its record."

What's the evidence? Only two facts: New jobs are created by previously established companies adding jobs and by new companies starting up; and this year's previously established companies are not going to add as many jobs as last year's established companies did.

What is missing? In order to prove the conclusion, we need to prove that if the evidence is true and IF a record number of companies do not start up, then the TOTAL number of new jobs created this year will be fewer than last year. The evidence tells us that the established companies will create fewer jobs. In order to show that the total number of new jobs will be smaller, we also need to know that the startups will create fewer jobs.

The "if" part of the conclusion tells us that there will be fewer startup COMPANIES -- but that is not what we need. We need fewer JOBS. Therefore, the missing assumption is that fewer startup COMPANIES necessarily means fewer JOBS. Answer choice C guarantees that this will be true, and so it is correct.

Cool +1
Director
Joined: 30 Jun 2007
Posts: 790
Followers: 1

Kudos [?]: 165 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

29 Oct 2008, 11:27
Good one.

I selected A, but now realized where I went wrong!

Thanks,
Retired Moderator
Joined: 18 Jul 2008
Posts: 975
Followers: 10

Kudos [?]: 219 [0], given: 5

### Show Tags

30 Oct 2008, 08:53
I actually thought C was more of a conclusion than an assumption...

Anyone agree?
SVP
Joined: 17 Jun 2008
Posts: 1553
Followers: 11

Kudos [?]: 263 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Oct 2008, 02:31
Conclusion: Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created.

Assumption should support the conclusion or one of the premises.
(a) is neutral.
(b) re-states one of the premises.
(c) eliminates an alternate means of breaking the record of new jobs. Hence, hold on this.
(d) Conclusion is not about the net jobs. Hence, irrelevant.
(e) Conclusion is not about the net jobs. Hence, irrelevant.

Hence, C should be the answer.

tarek99 wrote:
With a record number of new companies starting up in Derderia and with previously established companies adding many jobs, a record number of new jobs were created last year in the Derderian economy. This year, previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year. Therefore, unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

a) Each year, new companies starting up create more new jobs overall than do previously established companies.

b) Companies established last year will not add a greater number of jobs overall this year than they did last year.

c) This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.

d) This year, the overall number of jobs created by previously established companies will be less than the overall number of jobs lost at those companies.

e) The number of jobs created in the Derderian economy last year was substantially larger than the number of jobs lost last year.
Manager
Joined: 26 Oct 2008
Posts: 117
Followers: 12

Kudos [?]: 109 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Oct 2008, 09:34
bigfernhead -- for the purposes of this question, C is not a conclusion, because the conclusion is (by definition) the conclusion stated in the PARAGRAPH. A statement such as C could certainly be a conclusion in some other context -- but here, the conclusion has to be the conclusion of the paragraph.

Interestingly enough, you could restructure this question as an inference question, with C being the correct answer. But that takes us to a very different level of logic: the logic that is used to CREATE questions. We're interested in the logic for ANSWERING them.
_________________

Grumpy

Kaplan Canada LSAT/GMAT/GRE teacher and tutor

Manager
Joined: 20 Mar 2008
Posts: 157
Location: USA
Followers: 2

Kudos [?]: 50 [0], given: 0

### Show Tags

31 Oct 2008, 10:30
I will go with B

Edit : Oops : Agree with C
Senior Manager
Joined: 21 Apr 2008
Posts: 489
Schools: Kellogg, MIT, Michigan, Berkeley, Marshall, Mellon
Followers: 9

Kudos [?]: 52 [0], given: 13

### Show Tags

31 Oct 2008, 14:01
IMHO: C

Last year, the record was due to established companies and new companies. If this year, established companies will not add new jobs and Derderia will not reach the previous year record, thus new companies will not add more jobs than those that they did last year

OA?

Cheers

tarek99 wrote:
With a record number of new companies starting up in Derderia and with previously established companies adding many jobs, a record number of new jobs were created last year in the Derderian economy. This year, previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year. Therefore, unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

a) Each year, new companies starting up create more new jobs overall than do previously established companies.

b) Companies established last year will not add a greater number of jobs overall this year than they did last year.

c) This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.

d) This year, the overall number of jobs created by previously established companies will be less than the overall number of jobs lost at those companies.

e) The number of jobs created in the Derderian economy last year was substantially larger than the number of jobs lost last year.

Thanks!

_________________

http://gmatclub.com/forum/johnlewis1980-s-profile-feedback-is-more-than-welcome-80538.html

I'm not linked to GMAT questions anymore, so, if you need something, please PM me

I'm already focused on my application package

My experience in my second attempt
http://gmatclub.com/forum/p544312#p544312
My experience in my third attempt
http://gmatclub.com/forum/630-q-47-v-28-engineer-non-native-speaker-my-experience-78215.html#p588275

Manager
Joined: 26 May 2011
Posts: 159
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Finance
GPA: 3.22
Followers: 3

Kudos [?]: 26 [0], given: 10

### Show Tags

24 Aug 2011, 20:20
From the passage, prephase is: Need record # of new companies to maintain the number of jobs => no. of jobs per company will be low thats why we need a large no. of companies. If the companies were hiring same number of individuals per company the number of jobs would decrease.

In math form, # of new companies x no. of employees per company + estd. companies employees = constant.

# of new companies increase therefore no. of employees per company has to decrease.

C says that "This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year."

Intern
Joined: 20 Apr 2012
Posts: 7
Location: Thailand
Concentration: Finance
GMAT 1: 570 Q38 V31
GMAT 2: 540 Q43 V21
Followers: 0

Kudos [?]: 5 [0], given: 8

Re: With a record number of new companies starting up in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Oct 2013, 18:29
At first, I left between A and C and then I chose A
After reading explanation, I saw that C is more obvious.

But I'm curious of something here
Total No. of Job created related to variables
1.No. of Established companies (EC)
2.No. of jobs created by EC
3.No. of Start-up companies (SC)
4.No. of jobs created by SC
Then we got the formula : Total No. of Job created = (No. of EC)(No. of jobs created) + (No. of SC)(No. of jobs created)
But... here I thought we know only variable 1,2,4
We still not have value of 3. which is no. of start-up companies this year
From C we know No. of jobs created by SC this year but not the No. of SC that gonna pop up this year.
So if No. SC this yr is high enough to make the whole (No. of SC)(No. of jobs created) high to make new record.

How this argument still hold?
Could anyone please clarify this to me?
_________________

People don't FAIL, they just stop TRYING....

Economist GMAT Tutor Instructor
Joined: 01 Oct 2013
Posts: 69
Followers: 8

Kudos [?]: 40 [0], given: 7

Re: With a record number of new companies starting up in [#permalink]

### Show Tags

30 Oct 2013, 19:10
phunneyz wrote:
At first, I left between A and C and then I chose A
After reading explanation, I saw that C is more obvious.

But I'm curious of something here
Total No. of Job created related to variables
1.No. of Established companies (EC)
2.No. of jobs created by EC
3.No. of Start-up companies (SC)
4.No. of jobs created by SC
Then we got the formula : Total No. of Job created = (No. of EC)(No. of jobs created) + (No. of SC)(No. of jobs created)
But... here I thought we know only variable 1,2,4
We still not have value of 3. which is no. of start-up companies this year
From C we know No. of jobs created by SC this year but not the No. of SC that gonna pop up this year.
So if No. SC this yr is high enough to make the whole (No. of SC)(No. of jobs created) high to make new record.

How this argument still hold?
Could anyone please clarify this to me?

The central component of the argument is the following conditional:

NOT Record # of startups --> NOT Record # of new jobs

This conditional is false if there is a record number of new jobs despite not having a record number of new startups. Since other information in the problem rules out existing companies generating more new jobs, the only way the conditional is falsified is if this year's startups create far more jobs per company than last year.

Since the argument assumes that this won't happen, C is the correct response.
_________________

Economist GMAT Tutor
http://econgm.at/econgmat
(866) 292-0660

Re: With a record number of new companies starting up in   [#permalink] 30 Oct 2013, 19:10

Go to page    1   2    Next  [ 22 posts ]

Similar topics Replies Last post
Similar
Topics:
7 With a record number of new companies starting up in 6 18 Jul 2015, 09:53
5 With a record number of new companies starting up in 9 26 Feb 2016, 13:04
26 With a record number of new companies starting up in 10 13 Jun 2016, 14:44
4 With a record number of new companies starting up in 2 19 Jul 2016, 19:28
12 With a record number of new companies starting up in 30 23 Dec 2016, 21:44
Display posts from previous: Sort by