Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults receive government assistance. To reduce unemployment, the government proposes to supplement the income of th...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
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?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| 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. |
|
Argument Flow:
The argument starts by explaining the current system (government assistance for unemployed), then presents a proposed solution (job supplements), adds a crucial limitation (total income won't exceed assistance), and concludes this creates no incentive to work.
Main Conclusion:
Unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept jobs that would entitle them to the supplement.
Logical Structure:
The conclusion relies on the assumption that financial incentive is the only reason people would take jobs. If people work = same money as not working, then people won't work. We need to find something that shows people might work for reasons other than just money.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Weaken - We need to find information that would reduce belief in the conclusion that unemployed people will have no financial incentive to accept these supplement-eligible jobs
Precision of Claims
The conclusion is absolute - it claims people will have 'no financial incentive' to work. The argument assumes financial incentive is the only motivation for taking jobs, and that equal pay means zero incentive
Strategy
To weaken this argument, we need to show either: (1) there could be non-financial incentives that make working attractive even at equal pay, (2) there are hidden financial costs to staying unemployed that working would eliminate, or (3) there are additional financial benefits to working that aren't captured in the basic income comparison. We must respect the fact that total income won't exceed assistance levels
This tells us that government assistance isn't taxed, but this doesn't affect the argument's logic. Whether assistance is taxed or not doesn't change the fact that supplement jobs would pay the same total amount as assistance. This doesn't give unemployed people any additional financial incentive to work, so it doesn't weaken the conclusion.
Information about neighboring countries with minimum wage laws and higher unemployment rates is completely irrelevant to Ledland's situation. This doesn't tell us anything about whether unemployed people in Ledland would have financial incentives to accept supplement jobs. This is classic GMAT trap - interesting information that seems related but doesn't impact the argument.
This is our answer! This choice reveals a major flaw in the argument's reasoning. The argument only considers immediate income comparison but ignores future earning potential. If employed people have the best chance of getting significantly higher-paying jobs, then taking a supplement job creates a powerful financial incentive - it's your ticket to much better opportunities. This completely undermines the conclusion that there's 'no financial incentive' to work.
This tells us that government assistance is less than the average starting wage, but this doesn't help. The argument specifically talks about jobs that 'pay less than government assistance' - these aren't average starting wage jobs. For the low-paying jobs mentioned in the argument, people would still end up with the same total income whether working or not, so the incentive problem remains.
While this mentions non-financial reasons for choosing jobs, the argument's conclusion specifically claims there will be 'no financial incentive.' This choice doesn't address or weaken the financial incentive claim - it just suggests other types of incentives exist. The argument could still be correct about the lack of financial incentives even if non-financial incentives exist.