GMATPill wrote:
During the presidential debates, representatives from some states were dissatisfied with recent budget reforms, saying the new budget changes fail to meet the goal of directing federal funds to states who were most weakened by the financial recession. Their criticism is primarily based on the fact that most states that now receive additional funding are states with major city populations that enjoyed a budget surplus last year. What the critics disregard, though, is the fact that all the states who had their funding increased had been identified by an assessment committee as having greater than 20% decline in economic output over the past year. So regardless of the states' budget surplus or deficit, the federal government has not failed to distribute funds fairly.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) Rather than being determined by budget surplus or deficit, the amount of funding a state needs depends on whether it has a major city or not.
(B) The number of states that have received an increase in funding represents a significant proportion of all the states in the country.
(C) The committee's assessment of states' financial needs has been deemed biased by the local media.
(D) The assessment committee did not identify many states with greater than 20% decline in economic output other than those with major cities and budget surpluses in the last year.
(E) States with budget deficits typically had more decline in economic output than did states with major cities and budget surpluses.
Original Source: Practice Pill PlatformHi,
I would like to add my 2 cents.
Criticism: New budget changes failed to meet the goal of federal funds who were weakened by financial recession.
States which receive additional funding===> enjoyed budget surplus last year
Counter: All states whose funding increased === > had greater than 20% decline in economic output.
Conclusion: Federal govt. did not fail to distribute funds
Assumption: 1. Recession caused greater than 20% decline in economic o/p in states.
2. States who enjoyed budget surplus last year are the one's that showed greater than 20% decline in economic o/p.
(A) Rather than being determined by budget surplus or deficit, the amount of funding a state needs depends on whether it has a major city or not. Amount of funding has no relevance here. The argument talks about additional funding. Also major city or not is not a concern.
(B) The number of states that have received an increase in funding represents a significant proportion of all the states in the country. The criticism is made by states. The argument does not talk about funds at national level.
(C) The committee's assessment of states' financial needs has been deemed biased by the local media. "Biased by local media" .. This fails the argument... This is not an assumption
(D) The assessment committee did not identify many states with greater than 20% decline in economic output other than those with major cities and budget surpluses in the last year. This shows that the additional funding was provided to those states that have greater than 20% decline in economic output..Assumption 2 is correct.
(E) States with budget deficits typically had more decline in economic output than did states with major cities and budget surpluses. budget surplus is in talks here... Budget deficit is out of question..!!!
Assumption 2 connects the criticism and the counter statement.Thanks,
Jai
KUDOS if it HELPED..!!!