Editorial: In Ledland, unemployed adults

[Beatrice Michael]

Editorial: 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?
A. The government collects no taxes on assistance it provides to unemployed individuals and
their families.
B. Neighboring countries with laws that mandate the minimum wage an employer must pay
an employee have higher unemployment rates than Ledland currently has.
C. People who are employed and look for a new job tend to get higher-paying jobs than job
seekers who are unemployed.
D. The yearly amount unemployed people receive from government assistance is less than the
yearly income that the government defines as the poverty level.
E. People sometimes accept jobs that pay relatively little simply because they enjoy the work.


Can an expert please explain why C is the answer

according to A if the gov collects no taxes for the unemployed it is a financial incentive so it weakens the argument/conclusion where itt states that the unemployed have no Financial incentive with this

I would go with C because in the overall argument it would prove that the unemployed get lower paying jobs hence no financial incentive

Please explain and thankyou for your help and time....:)

[tim]

C provides a definite financial incentive for people to get a job even if they will make no more than the unemployment benefits. A actually strengthens the argument, because if unemployment benefits are untaxed but work is taxed, there is actually a financial disincentive to get low-paying work..

[750plus]

Team,

Can you please explain -

What is the problem with choice E ?

Thank You

[RonPurewal]

the argument is concerned solely with whether people have a financial incentive to get a job. so, any non-financial incentive (such as 'enjoying the work') is irrelevant.

[750plus]

the argument is concerned solely with whether people have a financial incentive to get a job. so, any non-financial incentive (such as 'enjoying the work') is irrelevant.

Yes, I have understood
Thanks

[tim]

Glad to hear it!

[RonPurewal]

the argument is concerned solely with whether people have a financial incentive to get a job. so, any non-financial incentive (such as 'enjoying the work') is irrelevant.

Yes, I have understood
Thanks

this is task number one: make sure you know WHAT IS ACTUALLY THE ISSUE.

this, by the way, is by far the most significant advantage of framing these problems in terms of normal human conversation.
if two people are debating about something, then—unless the 'debate' is lighthearted, ad hominem, and/or fueled by drunkenness—they will ALWAYS know exactly what is being debated.

[RonPurewal]

more specifically—
think about the following CONVERSATIONS:
1/ talking with someone about whether (s)he should take a certain job;
2/ talking with someone about whether (s)he should take a certain job for money-related reasons.

the point is that these are VASTLY different conversations.
if they look confusingly similar in text form—in fact, if they seem to have any similarity in text form—well, that's the disadvantage of text form!

[750plus]

more specifically—
think about the following CONVERSATIONS:
1/ talking with someone about whether (s)he should take a certain job;
2/ talking with someone about whether (s)he should take a certain job for money-related reasons.

the point is that these are VASTLY different conversations.
if they look confusingly similar in text form—in fact, if they seem to have any similarity in text form—well, that's the disadvantage of text form!

[RonPurewal]

in fact, if you can successfully TRANSLATE c.r. tasks INTO SPECIFICS, you'll find that...
...it's obvious why the correct answers are correct,
...it's obvious why the incorrect answers are incorrect,
...the wrong answers are all COMPLETELY wrong (for MAJOR reasons),
...the logic is not 'complicated'.

in other words, every CR problem should become quite easy IF you can translate it into informal, concrete, conversational language.

of course, THAT is the part that's actually hard.
(:

[750plus]

in fact, if you can successfully TRANSLATE c.r. tasks INTO SPECIFICS, you'll find that...
...it's obvious why the correct answers are correct,
...it's obvious why the incorrect answers are incorrect,
...the wrong answers are all COMPLETELY wrong (for MAJOR reasons),
...the logic is not 'complicated'.

in other words, every CR problem should become quite easy IF you can translate it into informal, concrete, conversational language.

of course, THAT is the part that's actually hard.
(:

I quite agree. And I think this comes with experience. CR for me is nothing but a snippet picked from a real life situation. They some time give you a situation at an investment bank and ask you to try to find out the best practise that can work in the given situation, may be a recently conducted survey and then ask you to strengthen/weaken the conclusion drawn from the survey or just a real life conversation.

You are more comfortable with them if you have been in that situation or have seen someone in that situation. And I think the more you experience with time, the better you get

[RonPurewal]

You are more comfortable with them if you have been in that situation or have seen someone in that situation.

this is undoubtedly true, but they are extremely careful NEVER to create problems that REQUIRE specialized knowledge or experience.
therefore, your imagination should be an adequate substitute for the kind of experience you're talking about—as long as that imagination is grounded in actual reality (= you don't start hypothesizing or assuming things that contradict everyday common sense).

[CrystalSpringston]

You are more comfortable with them if you have been in that situation or have seen someone in that situation.

this is undoubtedly true, but they are extremely careful NEVER to create problems that REQUIRE specialized knowledge or experience.
therefore, your imagination should be an adequate substitute for the kind of experience you're talking about—as long as that imagination is grounded in actual reality (= you don't start hypothesizing or assuming things that contradict everyday common sense).

HI Ron, I feel CR is like a short RC with long and winding sentences designed, and sometimes you can even find useless information attached. I agree with you that most of the intrinsic meanings and logics are virtually simple and undisputable. But why do we still make mistakes in questions that are not hard?
I hope I can achieve the status you mentioned——transfer the CR into cacual conversations or easily abtract the key logic chain from the "complicated" situation decribed.
Would you pls help to share with us any way to that?
Thank you!

[MoriofMay]

I think the most effective way for a certain type of question is to personalize the problem. In this situation, the passage should talk about people /business and their actions.

[RonPurewal]

Would you pls help to share with us any way to that?
Thank you!

this is an intuitive task. it's not possible to provide instructions for human intuition.

if i could give instructions for this sort of thing, then i would be able to invent 'strong antificial intelligence'. that's not going to happen.