Political Advertisement: Mayor Delmont's critics complain about the jobs that were lost in the city under Delmont's leadership. Yet the...
GMAT Critical Reasoning : (CR) Questions
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?
Passage Analysis:
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| 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. |
|
Argument Flow:
The ad starts by acknowledging critics' complaints about job losses, then presents two counter-facts (more jobs created than lost, and better pay for new jobs), and concludes that average paychecks must be growing steadily.
Main Conclusion:
Throughout Delmont's time as mayor, the average paycheck in the city has been getting steadily bigger.
Logical Structure:
The argument assumes that because more higher-paying jobs were created than lower-paying jobs were lost, the overall average salary in the city must be increasing. This logic depends on the math working out - that the positive impact of the new, better-paying jobs outweighs any negative impact from the job losses.
Prethinking:
Question type:
Strengthen - We need to find information that makes the conclusion more believable. The conclusion is that average paychecks in the city have been getting steadily bigger throughout Delmont's tenure.
Precision of Claims
The argument makes specific quantitative claims: more jobs created than eliminated, new jobs pay higher than city average every year since Delmont took office, and average paychecks are steadily increasing. We need to be precise about what could make this mathematical relationship stronger.
Strategy
The argument's logic depends on the math working out - that having more higher-paying jobs than lost jobs actually translates to rising average paychecks citywide. We should look for information that removes potential obstacles to this math or adds supporting evidence that the calculation is sound.
This tells us about pay progression within the new jobs created during Delmont's tenure - that newer jobs pay even better than earlier jobs he created. While this sounds positive, it doesn't help us understand the relationship between job creation, job elimination, and the overall citywide average paycheck. The argument already tells us new jobs pay above average each year, so knowing they've gotten even better over time doesn't strengthen the core mathematical logic about rising average paychecks citywide.
Knowing that average pay was low when Delmont started might help explain why there was room for improvement, but it doesn't strengthen the argument's logic about what's happening throughout his tenure. The argument claims steady increases during his time in office, and knowing the starting point was low doesn't help us verify that the math of job creation versus elimination actually supports steadily rising averages.
This actually introduces a potential complication rather than strengthening the argument. If some jobs created during Delmont's tenure have since been eliminated, this adds another variable to the calculation that could potentially weaken the conclusion rather than strengthen it. We'd need to know more about these re-eliminated jobs to understand their impact.
This is the key piece that makes the argument's math work. The argument claims that because more higher-paying jobs were created than jobs were eliminated, average paychecks must be rising. But what if the eliminated jobs were paying much higher than average? That could offset the gains from new job creation. This tells us that eliminated jobs paid roughly equal to the citywide average each year. This means the jobs being removed aren't creating a major drag on the calculation - we're essentially removing average-paying jobs while adding above-average-paying jobs, and doing so with a net gain in total jobs. This directly supports the mathematical logic underlying the conclusion.
Comparing city pay to suburban pay doesn't help strengthen the argument about trends within the city during Delmont's tenure. This is about relative standing compared to other areas, not about whether the internal math of the argument supports the conclusion about steadily rising average paychecks in the city itself.