The cost of manufacturing automobiles is considerably greater in Esteria than in Burdistan. In order to stimulate Esterian consumers’ purchases of domestically manufactured automobiles, the Esterian government has historically charged taxes on automobiles manufactured in Burdistan. Five years ago, however, the Esterian government dropped those taxes; in those five years, the number of workers employed in Esterian automobile factories has decreased by 30%. Therefore, the number of vehicles manufactured and sold in Esteria must have decreased in the last five years.

Which of the following, if true, most weakens the argument?


A) Many Esterian automobile manufacturers operate factories outside Esteria.

B) The number of automobile workers in Burdistan has not increased during the same period.

C) Because vehicles manufactured in Esteria have a reputation for high quality, many Esterian consumers have continued to purchase domestically manufactured vehicles since the tax was abolished.

D) Esterian automobile manufacturers have lowered the price of their automobiles so as to remain competitive with the manufacturers in Burdistan.

E) Recent innovations in automated automobile-manufacturing technology have approximately halved the number of worker-hours required to produce most automobiles.

OA: E

But I just don't get the logic here. How can E weaken this argument? I think E niether weakens nor strenghtens the argument.

Further I think this question is related to post50043.html#p50043

did you read the answer key?
If this statement is true, then Esterian factories could maintain their pre-innovation production levels even with a 50% decrease in the number of workers. Therefore, if the decrease in the number of workers has only been 30%, it is quite possible that Esteria’s domestic manufacturing of automobiles has remained constant or even increased. In any case, this statement destroys the connection made in the passage between the decrease in the number of workers and a hypothesized decrease in automobile production.

if you read that and didn't understand it, then please point out *what* you didn't understand; if you just say “i didn't understand it”, then our response is basically going to be a carbon copy of that answer key.
perhaps the difficulty is that you didn't understand the term “worker hours”; that refers to the total number of hours required to make the product, if you add up all the hours worked by each separate worker. so, if that quantity is cut in half, that means you can now make twice as many automobiles with the same number of workers.

I fell for answer C.

My logic was that if "many Esterian consumers have continued to purchase domestically manufactured vehicles" -> the number of vehicles sold would not do down.

I think in my mind, I equated "many" > 50% or the word most. If I'm correct, I think the reason that C is wrong is because many doesn't mean more than 50%, and that other people may not have bought a car period.

Is that right?

Oh you can totally not equate "many" with >50%. Be sure not to fall for that trap. The only thing you can say numerically for certain is that "many" means more than one. The rest of your analysis is irrelevant because it uses an incorrect starting point..

_________________
Tim Sanders
Manhattan GMAT Instructor