Politician: From the time our party took office almost four years ago the number of people unemployed city-wide incr...
AmarisPMay 20, 2015
Why not A or E?
I identified the conclusion as "due to our leadership, fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed, whatever the opposition may claim."
I understand that answer choice D is correct because no matter the percentage, the number of unemployed people is still increasing; however, I want to know why (A) and (E) are incorrect.
I was originally torn between these answer choices because they both seemed to deal with the last sentence of the conclusion, "whatever the opposition may claim". But then I thought, if I pick one, how could I not pick the other? Since they both deal with, in some way, the absence of the opposition's claim.
Replies
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
Conclusion: "fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed."
Premise: From the time the current politician's party took office almost four years ago the number of people unemployed citywide increased by less than 20 % whereas when the opposition party controlled, the number of unemployed city residents rose by over 20%.
This argument makes no sense.
So let's say that during the reign of the opposition party, there were 100 unemployed city residents living in the city. We are told that the number of unemployed city residents rose by over 20%. So, let's say that the number increased by 30%, meaning the number of unemployed residents rose to 130. We are told that from the time that the new party took office almost four years ago the number of people unemployed citywide increased by less than 20%. So let's say this number increased by 10%, meaning that we now have 143 unemployed residents. So, now there are 143 unemployed residents, whereas during the control of the previous party there were 130. So, as you can see, the evidence given to us actually goes against the conclusion, i.e. answer choice (D).
Answer choice (A) is not correct because the opposition's claims are not being dismissed without being specified. Clearly the opposition disagrees with the fact that "due to our leadership" there is a smaller number of people who are unemployed then before. The politician gives reasons as to why this disagreement by the opposition is ill-founded, i.e. the premise. So, answer choice (A) is not actually occurring, meaning it cannot be why the reasoning in the argument is vulnerable to criticism.
Answer choice (E) is irrelevant because an increase in the number of employed people makes no difference to us when the argument is trying to prove that there are fewer unemployed people. Remember, fewer unemployed people in the city does not necessarily mean that those unemployed people became employed--we could have the same result if those unemployed people left the city, i.e. less unemployed people in the city. Thus, whether the possibility of an increase in the number of people employed--due to the programs supported by the opposition party--are addressed has no bearing on the argument.
Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
b_theoOctober 30, 2019
Is there any way we can come to answer D without plugging in numbers? Just for the sake of time. Also I find it hard to know when I should plug in numbers to solve a question or not, is there any general rule of thumb for that? Thanks!
NinahBinahJune 27, 2020
Help. The two percentages being considered actually reflect two completely different things. One considered unemployment within city boundaries regardless of residency and the other only addressed the unemployment of those who lived within the city. To me, that was the greatest flaw.
