Editorial: In order to preserve the health of its local econ

[JbhB682]

Source : Manhattan Question | Critical Reasoning Guide 8 | Page 190 | Question 3

Editorial: In order to preserve the health of its local economy, Metropolis should not permit a Costmart warehouse department store to open within city limits. Its has been demonstrated that when Costmart opens a warehouse department store within a city, the bankruptcy rate of local retailers increases in that city by twenty percent over the next several years.

Which of the following questions would be most useful for evaluating the conclusion of the editorial:

(A) Does the bankruptcy rate of local retailers in a city generally stabilize several years after a Costmart warehouse department store opens ?

(B) Do most residents of Metropolis currently do almost all of their shopping at stores within the city limits of Metropolis?

(C) Have other cities that have permitted Costmart warehouse department stores within city limits experienced any economic benefits as a result?

(D) Is the bankruptcy rate of local retailers in Metropolis higher than in the average city that has permitted a costmart warehouse department store within city limits?

(E) Does Costmart plan to hire employees exclusively from within Metropolis for the proposed warehouse department store?

OA : C

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was between E and C for me and I chose E unfortunately

Here are my insights regarding why E is better than C

Thoughts ?

[JbhB682]

Yes - CostMart plans to hire exclusively from within Metropolis only for this warehouse
No - CostMart does not plan to hire exclusively from within Metropolis only for this warehouse

If Yes, this plan to hire locally from Metropolis only will offset the losses from the 20 % bankruptcy. Now how much of an offset, we don't know. Here are 3 scenario's
1a) CostMart may hire all of the folks (all local) who lost their jobs since CostMart's entry (all of the 20 % of folks who lost their jobs)
1b) CostMart may hire only 50 % of the folks (all local) who lost their jobs since Cost Mart entered.
1c) CostMart may hire only 0.0001 % of the folks (all local folks) who lost their jobs since CostMart entered.

Hence depending on the scenario, this may weaken the conclusion (if scenario 1a or 1b played out) or strengthen the conclusion (if scenario 1c played out)

If No, CostMart will hire folks from Metropolis and from other cities. Now this may or may not offset the losses from the 20 % local retail bankruptcies from Metropolis.

Let's say
CostMart hired 50 % from Metropolis and 50 % from some other city

2a) CostMart may hire all of the folks who lost their jobs since Cost Mart's entry into Metropolis [CostMart may have to fill so many new job openings, that even though they are hiring 50 % only from Metropolis , it is still enough to cover for all jobs lost in Metropolis since CostMart's entry]
2b) CostMart may hire only half of the folks who lost their jobs since Cost Mart entered Metropolis.
2c) CostMart may hire only 0.0001 % of the folks who lost their jobs since CostMart entered Metropolis.

Hence depending on the scenario, this may weaken the conclusion (if scenario 2a or 2b played out) or strengthen the conclusion (if scenario 2c played out)

Because between the two paths (Yes | No), neither path has a CLEAR strengthener / weakener -- hence E is not optimal in comparison to C ?

[JbhB682]

C on the other hand

If Yes -- this will clearly weaken the conclusion ONLY (no chance of strengthening)

If No - this will clearly strengthen the conclusion ONLY (no chance of weakening)

C is more optimal because each of the two paths, each path has a clear weakener / strengthener respectively (and no middle ground)

[esledge]

Because between the two paths (Yes | No), neither path has a CLEAR strengthener / weakener -- hence E is not optimal in comparison to C ?[/b]

C is more optimal because each of the two paths, each path has a clear weakener / strengthener respectively (and no middle ground)

You seem to have explained this to yourself. This is exactly it. The fact that you weren't quite sure what (E) implies for the conclusion means that the GMAT writers would just dismiss (E) as "irrelevant."