Recently, highly skilled workers in Eastern Europe have left jobs in record numbers to emigrate to the West. It is th...
dannyodFebruary 23, 2019
Very confused
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding this one. I feel like answer choice B STRENGTHENS rather than WEAKENS the argument. It states that "major changes" in economic structures has led to the elimination of "many" positions previously held by the highly skilled emigrants. It does not say what those major changes are, so it's not definitive that those changes are due to lack of demand for those workers (i.e. maybe the economy as a whole is collapsing, so there are less of positions available in general, but those still around are in high demand). If "many" but not all of these jobs have been eliminated, a scarcity of the few that remain seems like it would increase demand for the highly skilled workers that stayed, thus strengthening the passage's argument.
I chose E which doesn't seem very solid either, but I assumed if the positions are not currently filled, it indicates lack of demand (i.e. the positions would be filled immediately if candidates that remained were so highly in demanded as the argument suggests).
Thanks in advance for the help!
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Happy to help. Let's first take a look at the stimulus before we dive into the answer choices.
We're told that highly skilled workers are moving from Eastern Europe to the West. The argument concludes that the skilled workers who are still in Eastern Europe are in high demand.
The argument is basically trying to make an argument around supply and demand. However, in this argument, the author is making some big assumptions. For one, they are assuming that there's a need in Eastern Europe for the type of skills these workers have. Secondly, the author is assuming that there isn't a saturation of these skilled workers in Eastern Europe. Maybe the labor market is extremely crowded there!
Now that we see some of the key holes in this argument, let's take a look at the answer choices.
You said you chose (E).
(E) says, "Because of the departure of skilled workers from Eastern European countries, many positions are now unfilled."
The problem with (E) is that if there are so many vacant jobs, this make it more likely that the workers who stayed in Eastern Europe are still in high demand. The assumption you made about there being less demand because the positions aren't filled is the opposite of the assumption you would make. Think about computer programmers. There are a ton of vacant jobs for programmers. Does this mean there's no demand? No, it means there's A TON of demand. This is why (E) strengthens the argument. We can get rid of it.
(B) says, "Major changes in Eastern European economic structures have led to the elimination of many positions previously held by the highly skilled emigrants."
In stating that the jobs that the skilled workers formerly held do not exist anymore, this answer choice weakens the argument because if the jobs don't exist now, then the skilled workers can't possibly be in high demand for them. As a result, this answer choice weakens the argument, so it is the correct answer choice.
You may not be in love with (B), but compared to (E), it does weaken the argument, whereas (E) strengthens it.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!
dannyodMarch 1, 2019
Thanks for responding. I follow your logic. The confusion for me I think lies in the qualifier "many" in answer choice (B), which implies there are still some (fewer) jobs which can still translate to high demand, but maybe I'm just overthinking this.
RaviMarch 6, 2019
@dannyod,
Great question.
When (B) says, "Major changes in Eastern European economic structures have led to the elimination of many positions previously held by the highly skilled emigrants," the "many" means "some." "Some" means "one or more," and it can include "all." Thus, the implication you're saying (there are still some jobs which can still translate to high demand), isn't necessarily true.
Does this make sense? Make sure you review the quantifier lessons, which go over the different definitions of quantifiers (e.g., some, most, all, etc.). When we're told that there are some of something, it doesn't mean that we can conclude that there are also some of NOT something since some can include all.
