# Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

### AuthorTopic: a GMAT LR problem - try it out!  (Read 666 times)

#### sg7007

• Sr. Citizen
• Posts: 289
##### a GMAT LR problem - try it out!
« on: April 17, 2009, 02:57:21 AM »
Hi, everyone. Maybe, some ppl might remember me, maybe not. Now, I'm working as a GMAT instructor in Seoul. (The GMAT's way easier than the LSAT. )

I'm stuck with this Weaken question from a reconstructed PT sets (meaning it's from an unofficial material). It's from a GMAT PT, but it's got the same structure as a LSAT LR problem. They say the correct answer is (B), but I think it's (C). I posted this on a GMAT community website, but I think they are not as smart as ppl on this board.

-----------------------------------------------------
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 Kirfandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour.

Q. 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 regulations.
C. Many businesses hire trainees at or near the minimum wage but must
reward trained workers by keeping their paylevels 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.

#### non parata est

• Sr. Citizen
• Posts: 1052
• buh??
##### Re: a GMAT LR problem - try it out!
« Reply #1 on: April 17, 2009, 08:49:16 AM »
Looks like C to me.
Quote from: Lionel Hutz, Esq.
Well he's had it in for me ever since I kinda ran over his dog... Well, replace the word "kinda" with "repeatedly" and the word "dog" with "son."

#### 'blueskies

• LSD Obsessed
• Posts: 6021
• your changing skyline is twisting me up inside
##### Re: a GMAT LR problem - try it out!
« Reply #2 on: April 17, 2009, 08:59:46 AM »
Its not b because it doesn't do anything to the argument. The stimulus acknowledges that only a small percent of people are paid below minimum wage, the fact that its extremely below minimum wage as stated in b does nothing to weaken the argument

awkward follows you like a beer chasing a shot of tequila.

#### Matthies

• LSD Obsessed
• Posts: 5988
##### Re: a GMAT LR problem - try it out!
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2009, 01:42:51 PM »
I think its B, becuase "In fact its impact on wages will probably be negligible, since only a very small proportion of all Kirfandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour.

B says: Some firms in Kirlandia have paid workers considerably less than KD5.00
per hour, in violation of kirlandic employment regulations.

If "some frims" have paid even less than the 5,00 current mimimum wage invcreaseing all to 5,50 (and infrrence enfocing it) means that more than just a very "small protion" of employees would see an increase in wages over what they are now
*In clinical studies, Matthies was well tolerated, but women who are pregnant, nursing or might become pregnant should not take or handle Matthies due to a rare, but serious side effect called him having to make child support payments.

#### Barnum

• Sr. Citizen
• Posts: 344
##### Re: a GMAT LR problem - try it out!
« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2009, 03:23:56 PM »
This is the problem with working from fake questions.  There is no really correct answer choice.  The reason B would be tempting is because the original argument presumes that the raise will only be from \$5 to \$5.50 for a small number of companies and therefore negligible.  B is trying to point out that if some companies are paying less, let's say \$3/hour, then the raise to \$5.50 is more significant.  However, as Matthies has pointed out this requires that the businesses that have been violating the minimum wage to suddenly think "oh gee, now that it is more, we should probably pay it."  This of course would seem unlikely, so B really does not weaken it.

C would seem tempting if you thought it was suggesting that by raising the minimum wage, you would have to also raise the wages of the trained workers to keep them happy, thus indicating more people than just the minimum wage people would be getting raises indicating a larger change than initially suggested.  However, since the argument already stated only a small portion receive less than the \$5.50 already, only that same small portion would have to worry about trained workers who receive more.  It would also have to assume that the trained workers were probably not making more than \$5.5o themselves because if they were making \$6 for example, they would still be making more than the new hires after the hike and might not require an increase to their wages.

Either way B and C really require huge leaps to make them weaken and those leaps seem to be in contrast to presented information making neither a good weakener.

Whether you are studying for the LSAT or the GMAT, please always remember that it is best to study from real questions.

#### EarlCat

• Global Moderator
• Sr. Citizen
• Posts: 2533
• i'm in ur LSAT blowin' ur curve
##### Re: a GMAT LR problem - try it out!
« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2009, 08:49:28 PM »
I think C is fine.  This is a "weaken" question, not a "disprove" question.  We only have to sprinkle a little bit of doubt on the conclusion, and this is usually done by hinting that one of the assumptions might be wrong.

The conclusion is that the impact on wages will probably be negligible because very few work for less than \$5.50.  The assumption is that only those (at least for the most part) who make under \$5.50 will have their wages impacted.

But C suggests this is not the case--that a much larger pool of employees could experience a change in wages.  Granted, as Barnum pointed out, all the trained employees could make \$6+, and the conclusion would be fine ***BUT*** it MIGHT be the case that they all make \$5.50 and will thus experience a wage increase as well.  This suggests the conclusion MIGHT be wrong, and that's all we need.