Exports of United States wood pulp will rise considerably during this

Official Explanation

Argument Construction

Which one of the statements gives an assumption on which the argument depends?

The argument claims that exports of U.S. wood pulp will increase this year. Support for this claim is provided by the suggestion that as a result of the falling value of the dollar, paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe will be able to purchase wood pulp (the raw material for paper) more cheaply from the United States than from any other source.

This would be true because, if the dollar prices of U.S. wood pulp did not increase, firms in Europe and Japan would pay a smaller dollar-equivalent of their own currencies.

Note that this argument can easily fail: if U.S. wood pulp does not meet the minimum quality requirements of any paper manufacturers in Japan or Western Europe, then those manufacturers will purchase elsewhere. It follows that the reasoning depends on assuming that U.S. wood pulp does in fact meet those quality standards.

A. Even if factory output of paper products did not increase this year, manufacturers in Japan and Europe might import more U.S. wood pulp this year as raw materials for next year's production.

B. Correct. The predicted increase would likely not occur unless U.S. wood pulp met the manufacturers' minimum-quality standards.

C. The reasoning does not have to assume that cost is the sole factor. However, it clearly assumes that cost is an important factor. Nevertheless, it does not make any assumption regarding what the relative importance of cost and other factors might be. For this reason, it neither assumes nor implies what might happen in the case that cost is not a significant factor.

D. The reasoning does not need to assume that no such sharp increase will occur this year. In fact, if such an increase were to occur, it would be even more likely that exports of
U.S. wood pulp would increase this year if U.S. wood pulp became internationally more competitive on price this year.

E. Given the prediction that U.S. wood-pulp exports will increase, there is no reason to assume no sharp increase in U.S. wood pulp production during this year. Such an increase might even be likely if exports were to rise considerably. Therefore, option E is not assumed by the argument.

The correct answer is B.

(B) is the correct answer, and there is in fact no uncertainty about it. I’ll try to explain why.

First of all, it is really important to realize that for most assumption questions (not all), there are many assumptions, not one. That is, there are many different additional pieces of information that are needed in order to really prove the conclusion, but that were left out of the argument. This question is definitely of that type. Here are a few of the things that are not mentioned, but that have to be true (that is, the assumptions) in order to prove the conclusion:

- American paper manufacturers won’t buy so much of the American wood pulp that there is not much left for export.
- Japanese and European manufacturers are not ALREADY buying as much American wood pulp as the US can export.
- There is no characteristic or limitation of American wood pulp that would prevent Japanese and European manufacturers from using it, even though it would cost them less if they did. (Note that answer choice (B) is part of this one.)

In this kind of assumption question, the correct answer is one of the things that NEEDS to be true in order to prove the conclusion - but this answer is not ENOUGH BY ITSELF to prove the conclusion. In LSAT language, the correct answer is necessary in order for the conclusion to be true, but not sufficient.

So although it is true that (B) does not prove the conclusion, that doesn’t make it the wrong answer. (B) does have to be true in order to allow the conclusion to be even possible, and that makes it a necessary assumption, and therefore the right answer. Because we are looking for a necessary assumption, the “denial test” works for this question, as several people have already pointed out. The denial test works by contradicting the answer choice, and then seeing whether the CONTRADICTED version makes the conclusion impossible. If the contradicted answer choice makes the conclusion impossible, then the UNcontradicted answer choice must have been necessary in order to allow the conclusion. Thus, the uncontradicted answer choice must have been a necessary assumption.

The other choices are not necessary in order to allow the conclusion to be true:

A: They do not have to produce more paper in order to make American pulp exports go up. They could produce the same amount, but buy a lot more American pulp and a lot less of other countries’ pulp to do it.

C: They don’t have to prefer American pulp at an EQUAL price (or ignoring price) in order to make American pulp exports go up. We know from the evidence that American pulp will be really cheap. In order to make the exports go up, they only need to be willing to buy it AT THIS REALLY CHEAP PRICE.

D: I don’t think this one fooled anybody. It would be a reason NOT to buy more pulp from anyone, American or otherwise.

E: Production of American wood pulp does NOT have to stay at its present level in order to make exports go up. In fact, if the US is not able to increase its production of wood pulp, that might PREVENT wood pulp exports from going up. This one (like choice D) actually hurts the argument rather than helping it. The moral of this story is – every time you see the word “not”, make sure you know which way the statement is going.

It is nice to see various CR questions but I just want to take an attention about low quality questions such as this one. These questions just throw you in the wrong-path of thinking. Solving an official problem over and over again still has an advantage over solving unknown and debatable such as this one. Do not bother if you missed

I do not know the source of this question since the original poster hasn't given it but it is not a low quality question. Also, the OA is not debatable. It is a good tricky question and brings forward the essential difference between "necessary" and "sufficient" conditions. It is absolutely essential for you to understand this difference since you will find it useful not only in Verbal but also in Quant.

Check here: https://youtu.be/MmlwcTlHZz8

dear VeritasKarishma

would you please further elaborate what actually are necessary and sufficient conditions, how to figure out ?

I guess this approach will help a lot. but I lack of this knowledge.

thank in advance.

VeritasKarishma

Thanks for the excellent explanation. Negating options B and C, this is what I get:

(B) The quality of the wood pulp produced in the United States would not be adequate for the purposes of Japanese and Western European paper manufacturers.
(C) Paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe would not prefer to use wood pulp produced in the United States if cost were not a factor.

Using the negation technique, can we arrive at the conclusion that adequate>prefer hence we choose B. Thinking out loud because differentiating between suff and necess conditions during the exam may be a time consuming exercise Thoughts?

The negative of "would prefer" is "no preference".

I prefer A.
Negation: I do not prefer A which means I have no specific preference for A. So A is just like others. It doesn't mean that I do not like A.

So (C) negated is just that manufacturers have no preference. Then, it doesn't mean that US exports will not rise.

I have a video on this: https://youtu.be/MmlwcTlHZz8

They will help you understand the two. Let me know if you have any queries.

Exports of United States wood pulp will rise considerably during this year. - We’re given a prediction. Exports of US wood pulp will rise.

The reason for the rise is that the falling value of the dollar will make it cheaper for paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe to buy American wood pulp than to get it from any other source. - This statement gives us the reason for the prediction. Value of the dollar is falling. Thus, Japanese and European paper manufacturers will find it cheaper to buy from the U.S. than from elsewhere. (If you want an explanation for why this will happen, let us know. We’ll be happy to help.)

Gist: Since paper manufacturers of other countries will find it the cheapest to buy wood pulp from the US (support), exports of US wood pulp will rise (conclusion).


The missing link is: will the devaluation of the American dollar lead to higher exports? The argument assumes that if US wood pulp is the cheapest, foreign paper manufacturers will buy more.

Thus, the argument also makes the following underlying assumptions:

• Paper manufacturers are fine with the US wood pulp in all other regards – such as quality.
• These paper manufacturers will continue to have a demand for wood pulp this year.
• These paper manufacturers need wood pulp as raw material and do not have other viable alternatives.

We have already discussed a couple of assumptions above. As always, there could be others as well.



(A) Factory output of paper products in Japan and Western Europe will increase sharply during this year. This is the conclusion, not the assumption
Incorrect. It is not necessary that manufacturers will increase output this year to conclude that exports of US wood pulp will rise. Even if the factory output remains the same or even declines, the argument will hold.

(B) The quality of the wood pulp produced in the United States would be adequate for the purposes of Japanese and Western European paper manufacturers.IF the quality of the US woodpupl is not adequate, no one will buy even if the prices are lowered as this wood pulp would be of no use to them.
Correct. This is certainly an assumption the argument is making. If the quality is not adequate, irrespective of the price drop, these manufacturers will not buy from the US sellers. That will destroy the conclusion that exports of US wood pulp will rise.

(C) Paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe would prefer to use wood pulp produced in the United States if cost were not a factor. To me this one also means the same as the (B) options. it means that the quality of the wood pulp from US is good and they wold prefer to buy it if the cost is not the factor.
Incorrect. The argument says that the manufacturers will prefer US wood pulp because it will be the cheapest for them. It is not necessary that the manufacturers would prefer it even if cost were not a factor. The argument does not rest on this statement.

The option does support the conclusion. And that might attract many people to it. But, remember an assumption will not only support (or defend), but also be necessary for the conclusion to hold. This option is not necessary.

(D) Demand for paper products made in Japan and Western Europe will not increase sharply during this year. Out of scope
Incorrect. Why would this be necessary? If demand increases sharply (negation of the given statement), perhaps the manufacturers will buy even higher quantities from the US. Thus, the negation rather seems to support the argument.

If the test-makers wanted to make things more difficult, they’d have said:

Demand for paper products made in Japan and Western Europe will not decrease sharply during this year.

Try to evaluate this statement for a bit.

This one comes quite close but still is not necessary. We do not know the buying patterns of the manufacturers. Do they buy in advance? Will they still buy for the future because of low cost? The demand for the end-product does not necessarily tell us about the demand for the raw material. Even this statement would not be necessary.

(E) Production of wood pulp by United States companies will not increase sharply during this year.
Incorrect. This statement does not support the argument. It, in fact, weakens the argument. If the production will not increase sharply, perhaps exports will not increase.

How about if we negate this option?

Negated option: ‘Production of wood pulp by US companies will increase sharply during this year’.

Does this statement now become an assumption for the argument?

This negated option does support the argument. However, even this statement is not necessary to conclude that exports of US wood pulp will rise. Exports may happen at the cost of domestic sales.


Option C highlights a very important aspect of assumption questions. The correct option will not only support but also be necessary for the conclusion. An option that only supports will be wrong. This is a key difference between a strengthen and an assumption question.

SC Notes: “during this year”

This phrase might seem awkward but is just fine. During is used with a period of time. And ‘this year’ is indeed a period of time.

How about the phrase ‘during 1969’? This phrase sounds right, right? We could very well replace the year 1969 with ‘this year’.

“if cost were not a factor”

When dealing with hypothetical conditionals, we use ‘were’ even with singular subjects. Here ‘cost’ is singular, yet ‘were’ is correct.

Note: such usage is only for hypothetical situations. When dealing with a possibility that might be true, use ‘was’ as usual with a singular subject.

E.g.:

Correct: If I were tall, I would play basketball. – hypothetical

Correct: If he was at fault, he will get punished. – possibility


If you have any doubts regarding any part of this solution, please feel free to ask.

VeritasKarishma and nightblade354 -- Although this is a question from official guide. But can we expect questions based on sufficient and necessary assumptions.
Please suggest some good resource for similar reasoning problems. Normally, I struggle on such problems.

For GMAT, an "assumption" is a necessary missing premise only.
LSAT has questions that ask you for "assumption from which the conclusion will follow" which means they are looking for an assumption which is sufficient to make the conclusion hold. GMAT does not have such questions.

The links I have given above talk about the generic necessary and sufficient conditions, not about assumptions. The argument could easily have either necessary or sufficient conditions give to us and we need to be able to identify which is which.
e.g.
If the interest rate falls, the price of the bold will increase - falling interest rate is sufficient for bond price to increase
For the bond price to increase, the interest rate must fall - Fall in interest rate in necessary but it may not be sufficient and the bond price may still not increase because of other factors

VeritasKarishma
Mam, the LSAT example is enlightening!

But, in this question, if costs were not a factor, then Japan .. would prefer to buy US pulp. Is this sufficient ?
I mean even if they prefer to buy they might not end up buying. I think doesn't guarantee the conclusion that sales increases but definitely strengthens it.
I am trying to correlate it with the LSAT eg.

The LSAT example did leave a room for other ways by using "almost certainly"

Turns out GMAT revolves around necessary and sufficient conditions with DS - everything based on it.

In this question, the conclusion is a prediction. So we cannot say that it will happen because we cannot say anything for certain about the future. But if it is a prediction that logically follows from some given conditions, then we can say that the conditions are sufficient.

Japan and Europe prefer US pulp if cost is not a problem.
US pulp will be cheaper than any other.

Then it logically follows that Japan and Europe will prefer to buy US pulp. Then it is logical for us to say that US pulp exports will rise.
This is where the scope of our argument ends. What will actually happen in the future, we don't care.

The given argument does talk about expected increase in exports and hence you are correct in saying that the wood pulp is being exported in the present time as well. What the sentence does not mention is the name of countries importing the wood pulp. It is very likely that Japan and Western Europe are not importing wood pulp from the US at present.

Choice B presents a condition, which if not true, will break the conclusion. Also, it is a new information.


As per Choice C, if wood pulp from different countries costs the same, Japan and Western Europe will prefer to use wood pulp from the US.

What if we negate it: if wood pulp from different countries costs the same, Japan and Western Europe will not prefer to use wood pulp from the US.

However, as per the argument, cost of wood pulp from the US is going to be less than that from other countries. Hence, the condition in the argument is not same as the condition in choice C. Therefore, Choice C is not the correct assumption.


Hope that helps,
Regards

Read this article from Manhattan. It will help to understand why option C is wrong.

Sufficient vs. Necessary Conditions

Also watch the video on this link;

Sufficient And Necessary Conditions

AndrewN

Need your help in eliminating option C.

Hello, warrior1991. I have a little time before my first lesson, so I thought I would offer a full analysis of the answer choices, (C) included. I am uploading a color-coded image for discussion.


The first line of the passage is the conclusion or, in this case, the prediction. The second provides the reasoning for drawing that conclusion, conveniently starting with The reason for... I know that for assumption questions, many people prefer the negation technique; however, I prefer a "missing link" strategy. All I do is arrange the premise ahead of the conclusion and drag and drop an answer choice between the two to test for the missing link, keeping in mind that the GMAT™ adheres to as straightforward a logic as possible.

Choice (A) fails because we are not at all interested in production trends of paper products from Japan or Western Europe. The reason for the prediction given in the passage is that buying American wood pulp will be cheaper than getting it from any other source. The premise and prediction do not match up with this information wedged in between.

Premise: It will be cheaper for paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe to buy American wood pulp than to get it from any other source.

Assumption: Factory output of paper products in Japan and Western Europe will increase sharply during this year.

Conclusion: [Therefore] Exports of United States wood pulp will rise considerably during this year.

No, that does not work. It begs the question of why the U.S. wood pulp would be needed; domestic outputs sound robust on their own, not to mention that we have no idea about the demand for paper products in Japan or Western Europe.

Choice (B) works because the exports would be nothing more than cheap trash unless the argument presupposes that U.S. wood pulp would be good enough to meet the standards for Japanese or Western European paper products. Try the same test from before:

Premise: It will be cheaper for paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe to buy American wood pulp than to get it from any other source.

Assumption: The quality of the wood pulp produced in the United States would be adequate for the purposes of Japanese and Western European paper manufacturers.

Conclusion: [Therefore] Exports of United States wood pulp will rise considerably during this year.

Everything checks out. There is a clear and linear progression of ideas from step to step.

Choice (C) fails because we have no idea what paper manufacturers would prefer if cost were not a factor. The reason offered in the passage makes it clear that cost is a factor. Furthermore, maybe such manufacturers prefer their own wood pulp, but if something else comes along that is "close enough" and is also offered at a cheaper price than domestic wood pulp, they would be willing to take a gamble. I think of some of the knockoff replacement products I have bought over the years—ink cartridges and toothbrush heads come to mind—because genuine replacements were quite costly in comparison. (In some cases, my gamble paid off; in others, not so much.) Would I have rather had genuine replacements? Sure. But cost was a factor, just as it is in this passage.

Choice (D) fails because it focuses on demand for Japanese- and European-made paper, and the passage concerns itself with U.S. exports of wood pulp. Besides, who is to say that Japan and/or Western Europe will not make domestically produced paper products out of the U.S. wood pulp? Are consumers in these places concerned with the contents of these paper products, or just where they happen to be produced?

Choice (E) fails because it does not help us get from X to Z in the passage. If the conclusion is that exports of United States wood pulp will rise considerably during this year, then why would it be necessary to assume production of wood pulp by U.S. companies would do anything but rise to meet demand for these exports? This should be an easy answer to cross off.

I hope that helps address your concerns. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

- Andrew