This question is from GMATPrep。 after I search the forum, I found similar question but different type.

In Kravonia, the average salary for jobs requiring a college degree has always been higher than the average salary for jobs that do not require a degree. Over the last few years, the number of Kravonians enrolled in college has been growing steadily. Therefore, the number of Kravonians entering the job market who have at least the qualification of a college degree will eventually be significantly higher than it has been over the last few years.
Which of the following, if true, most seriously weakens the argument?
A. Kravonians with more than one college degree earn little more, on average, than do Kravonians with only one college degree.
B. The average number of years Kravonian college students remain enrolled before completing a degree has been increasing over the past several years.
C. Despite the increase in the number of Kravonians attending college, the percentage of the population attending college is lower in Kravonia than in most other countries.
D. In recent years, employers have been requiring college degrees for workers in jobs that were previously performed successfully by Kravonians who did not have college degrees.
E. For many years, employers in Kravonia have had difficulty finding enough college graduates to fill the high-paying jobs that were available.

the answer is B.
I think the argument is "the number of Kravonians entering the job market who have at least the qualification of a college degree will eventually be significantly higher than it has been over the last few years."

Although many students stay at school longer, it doesn't mean that people who have college degree won't higher. Because the argument uses "eventually".

So I need help, thanks in advance :).

Hi,

Can anyone please answer this question. B does not make sense to me as well. "Eventually" is a strong word. If it was for this year, I could agree.

I am pretty sure that I am missing an important point. can anyone please explain?

- Pankaj

the problem with this argument is that it takes the observation that "the number of Kravonians enrolled in college has been growing steadily", and takes that observation to mean that the number of graduates is going to increase in proportion.

choice (b) attacks this connection -- if students are taking longer to graduate from college, then the increased enrollment doesn't necessarily mean that there will be any more graduates! it's just a symptom of the fact that students are staying in school for longer.

for instance, if students take 4 years to graduate from college and college graduates 1000 students per year, then (not counting dropouts) that college's enrollment will be approximately 4000 students.
if students begin to take five years to graduate from college, then that same college will begin to have an enrollment of 5000 students -- even if it graduates the same number (1000) of students per year.

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes

Fantastic explanation Ron. You simply rock.

Ron does indeed rock! Thanks all.

_________________
Jamie Nelson
ManhattanGMAT Instructor

Guys,

I find a flaw in the response. (just my opinion, might be wrong)

The argument begins by mentioning that ppl with a college degree in Kravonia earn on average more than than ppl working with no college degrees. (Does not say how much more).

Now the link - Get a degree to earn more in Kravonia.

Choice A states that Kravonians with more than one college degree earn little more on average than ppl who have just one degree.

Why would a student graduating not want to earn more if that is the whole point of this argument???

Also, Point B states that number of years taken on average by a student to complete studies has been growing. Ok. Was 3 years. Now is 4.

The question stem says- The number of Kravonians entering the job market (when ???, this year, next year, after 5 years?) will eventually be higher than previous years.

Both weaken on a IF basis. Not concrete to my head.

i don't see what connection you're trying to make here -- but (a) is irrelevant to the argument, which deals only with "yes college degree(s)" vs. "no college degree".

(a) distinguishes instead between "one college degree" and "multiple college degrees" -- a distinction that is not made in the argument.



scroll up 3 posts from your post (or scroll up 4 posts from this one) for an explanation of why the increased *number* of enrolled students doesn't translate into more graduates. if you don't understand that explanation, then quote it and explain specifically what you don't understand.

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes

If the question asks us to “strengthen the conclusion “ would (d) and (e) be potential strengtheners ? I’m asking because in the Thursdays with Ron video in which this question was addressed , Ron mentioned that (d) and (e) are irrelevant to the argument’s conclusion.
(D) implies that jobs that were previously held by “non degree holders” will not shift to “degree holders” . The argument’s conclusion states that the “number of people with college degrees entering the workforce will increase “ ; so if these people see that more jobs are available for them , they might be inclined to “enter the workforce” so to speak rather than do something such as going for a graduate degree.
(E) might also be able to strengthen the argument ; Since these “high paying jobs” are available more people might be inclined to enter the “worforce” rather than do something such as going for a graduate degree .

Am I wrong in assuming so many things ?

george


the most reliable indicator that you are going too far with your assumptions is your own word, “might”. in essence, the use of “might” amounts to “i'm just making this up, essentially at random, and trying to build an argument on it”. in other words, definitely not strong enough to be a legitimate strengthener or weakener.

the real point here, though, is that you don't have to worry about this distinction in the first place -- because the question is asking you to weaken the argument. therefore, if the issue is “it might strengthen the argument a little bit, or it might be irrelevant”, then there's really no issue at all, because both of these outcomes represent a No to the question, is the argument weakened?”

if this were a strengthening question instead, i'm fairly certain these answer choices wouldn't show up. they are too indirectly related to be correct answers, but even that essentially negligible level of doubt would be too much for an official problem.

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes

For CR questions in general does it make sense to do this kind of analysis ? I mean if the official question asks for a weakener , then after finishing the problem should I also try to figure out what options could potentially strengthen the argument ? Or is this a waste of time ?

Also is it a good idea to "figure" out why exactly the creators of the test put in a particular answer choice ? or if I find the option irrelevant , should I just eliminate it and move on ?

basically a waste of your time. in fact, it's worse than just a waste of time, in two ways:
1/
it trains you to become distracted from the actual task at hand. (i.e., rather than thinking about weakening the argument, you're training yourself to think about all sorts of irrelevant things.)
2/
it will create issues that should actually be non-issues, such as the one in this thread.



if there's an obvious reason, you can note it. if not, don't spend a ton of effort trying to read their minds.
a lot of the answer choices are basically just random; remember that, at the end of the day, they have to write 5 answer choices for each problem, and they won't always (or even usually) have divine inspiration for all five.

there is, however, one thing you should try to do for all CR problem types except "draw the conclusion" and "boldface": make a new correct answer to the problem.
in other words, create a new "answer choice" that doesn't work in the same way as the original correct answer, but that would also be a correct answer if it were present.
this will help to get your brain thinking in the right way, since it will be impossible to do if you are thinking in terms of memorized "rules".

_________________
Being well-dressed gives a feeling of inward tranquillity [that] religion is powerless to bestow.
C.F. Forbes