Query relating to Mex Growth - RC

[aalokshah85]

Which of the following is most strongly suggested about U.S. employers of Mexican immigrants?
(a) Most of these employers pay illegal Mexican immigrants less money than they pay legal Mexican immigrants.
(b) Some of these employers either violate or are exempt from wage laws.
(c) Without Mexican immigrants, some of these employers would be forced to close their businesses.
(d) Most of these companies employ Mexican immigrants in order to lower their costs and, therefore, increase their profits.
(e) The majority of these employers prefer to hire immigrants for low-paying jobs rather than U.S. citizens.

As per Manhattan, the correct answer is (b) however the passage clearly states "These workers, many of whom leave economically depressed villages in the Mexican interior, [b]are often willing to work for wages well below both the U.S. minimum wage and the poverty line" and says nothing whether US employers breach the law by paying them lower wages than the minimum wage limit. Could you please help clarify my query.

[jnelson0612]

Hi,
Please post the entire RC passage so we can help you.

[aalokshah85]

For years, employers in the United States have counted on a steady flow of laborers from Mexico willing to accept low-skilled, low paying jobs. These workers, many of whom leave economically depressed villages in the Mexican interior, are often willing to work for wages well below both the U.S. minimum wage and the poverty line. A dramatic demographic shift currently taking place in Mexico, however, may alter the trend: the stream of workers migrating from Mexico to the United States might one day greatly diminish if not cease.
As a result of a decades-long family planning campaign, population growth, which had reached a peak of 3.5% in 1965, declined to just 1% by 2005. On average, Mexican women today are giving birth to fewer than half as many children as did their mothers. The campaign, organized around the slogan that "the small family lives better," saw the Mexican government establish family-planning clinics and offer free contraception. For nearly three decades, the government’s message concerning population has not wavered. In fact, the Mexican Senate recently voted to expand public school sex education programs to kindergarten.
For two primary reasons, Mexico’s new demographics could greatly impact the number of Mexicans seeking work in the U.S. First, smaller families directly limit the pool of potential migrants. Second, the slowing of Mexico’s population growth has fostered hope that Mexico will develop a healthy middle class. Though the former of these factors is all but assured, the growth of a healthy middle class is far from a foregone conclusion. The critical challenge for Mexico is what it does with the next 20 years. Developing a stable middle class will require investments in education, job training, and infrastructure, as well as a social-security system to protect its aging population. Businesses will need to create more semi-skilled and skilled jobs in construction, manufacturing, and technology, as well as the associated "white collar" jobs that too many Mexican manufacturers currently locate outside of the country’s borders. It remains to be seen whether government and industry will answer these challenges as vigorously as the family-planning campaign answered the problem of population growth.

[aalokshah85]

Hi,
Please post the entire RC passage so we can help you.

For years, employers in the United States have counted on a steady flow of laborers from Mexico willing to accept low-skilled, low paying jobs. These workers, many of whom leave economically depressed villages in the Mexican interior, are often willing to work for wages well below both the U.S. minimum wage and the poverty line. A dramatic demographic shift currently taking place in Mexico, however, may alter the trend: the stream of workers migrating from Mexico to the United States might one day greatly diminish if not cease.
As a result of a decades-long family planning campaign, population growth, which had reached a peak of 3.5% in 1965, declined to just 1% by 2005. On average, Mexican women today are giving birth to fewer than half as many children as did their mothers. The campaign, organized around the slogan that "the small family lives better," saw the Mexican government establish family-planning clinics and offer free contraception. For nearly three decades, the government’s message concerning population has not wavered. In fact, the Mexican Senate recently voted to expand public school sex education programs to kindergarten.
For two primary reasons, Mexico’s new demographics could greatly impact the number of Mexicans seeking work in the U.S. First, smaller families directly limit the pool of potential migrants. Second, the slowing of Mexico’s population growth has fostered hope that Mexico will develop a healthy middle class. Though the former of these factors is all but assured, the growth of a healthy middle class is far from a foregone conclusion. The critical challenge for Mexico is what it does with the next 20 years. Developing a stable middle class will require investments in education, job training, and infrastructure, as well as a social-security system to protect its aging population. Businesses will need to create more semi-skilled and skilled jobs in construction, manufacturing, and technology, as well as the associated "white collar" jobs that too many Mexican manufacturers currently locate outside of the country’s borders. It remains to be seen whether government and industry will answer these challenges as vigorously as the family-planning campaign answered the problem of population growth.

[tim]

Of course the passage doesn’t SAY the employers are breaking the law; that’s why the question is asking which one is most strongly SUGGESTED. Immigrants are working, they are willing to accept illegally low wages, it is reasonable to conclude that employers may be paying lower than minimum wage. You do not have to be convinced that this is happening; you just have to be convinced that none of the other answer choices are MORE likely..

[aalokshah85]

Of course the passage doesn’t SAY the employers are breaking the law; that’s why the question is asking which one is most strongly SUGGESTED. Immigrants are working, they are willing to accept illegally low wages, it is reasonable to conclude that employers may be paying lower than minimum wage. You do not have to be convinced that this is happening; you just have to be convinced that none of the other answer choices are MORE likely..

Thanks Tim, makes sense.

[tim]

awesome; glad to hear it..

[krishnasty]

Tim, i am still not convinced that ans should not be between C or D. i thought that we should not assume or infer things out of the passage.

Of course the passage doesn’t SAY the employers are breaking the law; that’s why the question is asking which one is most strongly SUGGESTED. Immigrants are working, they are willing to accept illegally low wages, it is reasonable to conclude that employers may be paying lower than minimum wage. You do not have to be convinced that this is happening; you just have to be convinced that none of the other answer choices are MORE likely..

[jnelson0612]

Tim, i am still not convinced that ans should not be between C or D. i thought that we should not assume or infer things out of the passage.

Of course the passage doesn’t SAY the employers are breaking the law; that’s why the question is asking which one is most strongly SUGGESTED. Immigrants are working, they are willing to accept illegally low wages, it is reasonable to conclude that employers may be paying lower than minimum wage. You do not have to be convinced that this is happening; you just have to be convinced that none of the other answer choices are MORE likely..

You absolutely should logically infer things out of the passage. In fact, some of the questions in RC are in fact inference questions. Don't hesitate to draw logical conclusions that are supported by the facts of the passage.

[agautamdai]

I did not choose the ans B because i thought that passage might indicate that the employers are violating the wage law by paying less wages than the minimum wage but surely the passage does not say a thing about exemption of these employers ... how can we infer that . I choose D because that was the only answer in which they talked about low wages which would logically mean lower cost ... although i agree that profit was not mentioned...

I thought exemption from the law was worse than the profits ...

Please explain...

[jnelson0612]

I did not choose the ans B because i thought that passage might indicate that the employers are violating the wage law by paying less wages than the minimum wage but surely the passage does not say a thing about exemption of these employers ... how can we infer that . I choose D because that was the only answer in which they talked about low wages which would logically mean lower cost ... although i agree that profit was not mentioned...

I thought exemption from the law was worse than the profits ...

Please explain...

Let's take another look at the relevant sentences in the passage. Keep in mind that when we draw an inference, we are choosing the answer that HAS to be true based solely on the information in the passage.

Here's the relevant part:
For years, employers in the United States have counted on a steady flow of laborers from Mexico willing to accept low-skilled, low paying jobs. These workers, many of whom leave economically depressed villages in the Mexican interior, are often willing to work for wages well below both the U.S. minimum wage and the poverty line.

So employers are paying these workers LESS than the United States minimum wage. They are paying less than they are legally allowed to pay. Okay, so if an employer is doing this then logically one of the following is true:
a) the employer is breaking the law
OR
b) the employer has some sort of special waiver or exemption from having to observe the minimum wage law, so by paying wages below the U.S. minimum wage the employer is still behaving legally.

The problem with answer choice D) is it says something we just don't know. We don't know WHY the employers employ these people, so we can't choose D. Remember, an inference has to be true based on the information given.

I hope that this helps! Please let us know if you need further clarification.

[maxschauss]

This question is weird, please just delete it or edit it.

I want to study for the GMAT and not study the US American law. How can I know anything about any "minimum wages" in the US?!
Furthermore, it is just not clear why B is more suggested than D. It's just some random opinion of the creator of this question (and therefore of all GMAT instructors), but doesn't help at all when studying for the GMAT. It's just confusing.

[tim]

unfortunately, if you don't like the way GMAT questions are written, you just have to deal with it or don't take the test. there are always enough context clues to determine what a RC question is asking, so if you find something confusing the appropriate response is to work harder to understand what you missed the first time through the problem, not to complain about a question. the latter solution is virtually guaranteed to produce failure on the GMAT..

[chenxil]

Sorry to dig up another old thread, but just wanted to clarify again between B and D.

Neither are specifically mentioned in the passage, so I'm not exactly sure why we can infer that B is more likely than D. Yes, we don't know the motivation of the employers, but we do not know that they are employing the workers below the minimum-wage either. If the workers are willing to work at lower costs, it seems to be that it is very likely that the companies are hoping to reduce their costs by hiring these immigrants. Please clarify!

[thapliyalabhi]

Sorry to dig up another old thread, but just wanted to clarify again between B and D.

Neither are specifically mentioned in the passage, so I'm not exactly sure why we can infer that B is more likely than D. Yes, we don't know the motivation of the employers, but we do not know that they are employing the workers below the minimum-wage either. If the workers are willing to work at lower costs, it seems to be that it is very likely that the companies are hoping to reduce their costs by hiring these immigrants. Please clarify!

I too have the same doubt. Immigrants are willing to work for illegally low wages, and employers are employing them does not mean that employers are employing them for illegally low wages. If we are assuming that employers will employ the immigrants for illegally low wages, then can't we assume that these employers employ immigrants to lower their cost and increase profits.

Please clarify.