In Kravonia, the average salary for jobs requiring a college

[RonPurewal]

Sorry to add a question to this CR problem--I went with E thinking that means there are not enough graduates available despite the increased enrolled college students. I thought B has a similar point but E actually states fewer graduates so chose E. What is wrong with my thinking...?

Thanks for your help!

First, and most importantly, the idea in (E) is entirely irrelevant. We're concerned only with whether the number of graduates is increasing.
We don't care at all about how that number compares to the number of job openings.

Second, (E) is describing a historical trend ("For many years...", not something that obtains at the same time as the changes described in the passage.

[lsyang1212]

I see why choice B is correct now, but I originally picked D, and am not entirely convinced I can talk my way through why D is wrong.

To me, D was saying: there are employees ALREADY in the job market that don't have college degrees. The employers want these employees to go get a college degree (hence contributing to the increase in students enrolling in college).

Well if these employees are the ones who are getting the degree, then THEY ARE ALREADY A APART OF THE JOB MARKET, and do not contribute in the increase in new workforce mentioned in the argument (no double counting).

If this is the case, then wouldn't D help weaken the argument that there will be more people with degrees entering the job market?

[RonPurewal]

The argument is about what will eventually happen.

Your statements here are, at best, a reason why certain strictly interpreted statistics won't change for a short time.
In other words, for some extremely short timeframe (a few years at most), you're saying that this choice doesn't strengthen the argument.

Two big problems there.

1/
"Doesn't strengthen" is not at all the same thing as "weaken".

2/
"Will eventually..." encompasses enough time for people to retire and for new graduates to take their place. With the changes described, this choice definitely strengthens the argument in the long term.

[Brandong984]

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.

Ron- I know this is an old post, but I think there is still a flaw in your logic. Yes the first 5 years after this change begins (let's call T=0 2017), there will be no change in the # of graduates with degrees. If before the change each grade has 1,000 students and there is 100% graduation rate, but now an additional 1,000 students enroll who will take 5 years to graduate. So now each incoming first year class has 2,000 students.

In 2018, the 1,000 students who enrolled in 2014 will graduate. 2,000 new students will enroll (just like 2017, 1,000 will graduate in 2022, and 1,000 will graduate in 2023)
in 2019, the 1,000 students who enrolled in 2015 will graduate. 2,000 new students will enroll (just like 2017, 1,000 will graduate in 2023, and 1,000 will graduate in 2024)
in 2020, the 1,000 students who enrolled in 2016 will graduate. 2,000 new students will enroll (just like 2017, 1,000 will graduate in 2024, and 1,000 will graduate in 2025)
in 2021, only 1,000 of the students who enrolled in 2017 will graduate, since the other 1,000 will take 5 years. up until this point your argument makes sense. However, let's look what happens next year!

In 2022, 1,000 of the students from new enrollees from 2018 will graduate (as only half of will graduate in 2022, and the other half in 2023), AND 1,000 students from the new enrolles in 2017.

Let's look at the prompt again:

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?

Hence, you can see eventually the # of graduates will be higher than it was originally. Can you please elaborate or explain where I misunderstood?

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

The flaw in your logic is that you are assuming that the incoming class increases to 2,000 students. If that happens, then, sure, after a while the number of graduates will increase. Take a look at this example:

In 2017, 1000 students enroll for a 4 year course. At this point, there are 4000 students in college (1000 in each year group).
In 2018, the course is extended to 5 years, and again 1,000 students enroll. This means that all new students have to stay at college for an extra year, meaning that there will be 5,000 students studying at college at any one time once the change works its way through the system.

In this way, you can see that just because we have an increase from 4,000 to 5,000 enrolled students, doesn't mean that we have more graduates (it's still 1,000 per year).

I think that the confusion comes from the word 'enroll'. When the argument states that 'the number of Kravonians enrolled in college has been growing steadily' it doesn't mean that the intake has increased, it just means that the number of students studying at college has increased.

[GayathriS834]

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.

Wow, I stared at this problem for a long time and still did not make this connection, thank you Ron!

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]