A reduction in the number of people filing new claims for state unempl

A and E both are strong contenders.....but m not able to figure aot any strong enough reason to keep E and reject A...plz explain

Premise: The number of people collecting state unemployment benefits has dropped considerably over the last three months
Conclusion: Recession has come to an end.

The assumption should be something that shows that the conclusion is not because of a fact different from the premise. Choice E exactly shows that. Choice A says exactly the opposite of the premise and so cannot be the assumption.

At least POE was between E and A.

My reasoning for A.

Low claims>>No more recession.

Assume people who are laid off and are eligible for benefits actually do file a claim for those benefits.

But E was also pretty solid.

Assume people's benefits run out, so still unemployed, recession unchanged.

Negate E - reduction in the number of people collecting unemployment benefits is because of an increase in the number of people whose benefits came to an end.

Reduction is because benefits came to an end and not decrease in recession. - This makes the conclusion fall apart.

IMO E

1)A majority of the number of people who became eligible to file unemployment benefits from the state in the past three months chose to do so.
This actually WEAKENS the argument. If majority of the eligible people actually filed for benefits, then the number can possibly go up.

2)The drop in the number of people collecting unemployment benefits from the state cannot be traced to a reduction in the number of people being dismissed from minimum wage jobs.
This can be the answer, but it talks specifically about people being dismissed from minimum wage jobs. If the number of dismissed people is less than the drop in the number of people collecting benefits, then it is not actually talking about why those folks stopped collecting benefits ( who were not dismissed from these minimum wage jobs).

3)A substantial number of people who had been collecting unemployment benefits have been rehired by their former employers during the last three months.
This again is useless. It is like 3+3-3 = 3 (original number). Does not help us.

4)A substantial number of people have not in the last three months moved from one state where they have collected unemployment benefits to another state where they continue to receive jobless benefits.
This talks about people collecting benefits in different states. It is not related to what we are looking for.

5)The reduction in the number of people collecting unemployment benefits from the state is not because of an increase in the number of people whose benefits came to an end.
This fits the bill. In classic GMAT fashion, it tells you that there could be a possibility that some of the people have had their benefits come to an end. But, the drop is not related to this alone. This throws open the possibility of other reasons.

One thing I find is that such options open the door for the student to speculate and it seems the Test creators love doing that.

Even after reading the above explanations a few times, it still is not clear.

My confusion is still between A and E. Using the negation technique does not work here.

A: If more people file for unemployment benefits, it strengthens the argument because it validates that the number of claimants is an accurate reflection of reality. If I am using the number of claims (i.e unemployment) as a benchmark for the state of the economy, it would be a cause for concern if people are actually unemployed but NOT claiming unemployment benefits.

E: I would think that the signs of economy recovery are based on the people filing for claims regardless of whether there were previously unemployed or not. What matters is what is the current state of claims. So how does it matter what happened in the past? Why do we care about eliminating this possibility?

I am clearly missing something?

Responding to a pm:



Ok, how is ANT useful? If you negate an assumption, the conclusion CANNOT HOLD.

The way you negated (be negating the verb), gives us similar results as those obtained by me by negating the subject (logical opposite of most is few)

(A) negated by me: Only few eligible people chose to file.
(A) negated by you: Most eligible people chose not to file.

So this is not the problem.

Conclusion: Recession is coming to an end.

Is it still possible that recession is coming to an end? Sure. Perhaps only few people became eligible (were fired) and out of those only few filed for benefits. It is still possible that recession is coming to an end.
If the conclusion can hold even after negating an option, the option cannot be an assumption.

Thank you Karishma. Now I understand. In either ways, applying negation technique to choice A strngthens the conclusion and hence the choice cannot be the assumption.

Hope everyone is clear.

The argument considers the numbers of all the states together. A reduction in the number of people filing new claims for state unemployment benefits (in all states) is a sign of nationwide recession coming to an end. We are not considering a single state here. For us to say anything about 'nationwide recession', the numbers must come from the whole nation. If people moved from one state to another, it wouldn't affect the overall numbers at all.

Karishma , I would not have been able to pick up the right choice . Luckily I remembered this argument from one article in Economist magazine where the reasoning was given as E. However I think that sometimes GMAC goes into too obscure reasoning and logical linkages in their CR section.

Himanshu,

Actually, I wouldn't say that GMAC uses obscure reasoning. If you look thoroughly enough, you will be able to find very genuine reasons - many people do not prepare at all for GMAT and still do well. It means you don't necessarily have to learn GMAT ways. The only thing is that most of us are not trained enough to look closely and hence we need to learn to do that.

Karishma I have only one doubt with E
No. of people claiming unemployment benefits(X) = no. of new people filing(Y) + no. of old people already using(Z)
Rewriting it as X= Y + Z

Now X could decline if either Y or Z or both decline. Using negation test on E - X is declining because of a decline in Z. This does not mean that only the decline in Z is causing X to decline. It might be the case that both Y and Z are declining which result in the decline of X. In that case conclusion would still hold true.

You see that X is declining and you conclude from that that Y must have declined. So what is your assumption? That Z has not declined. If you know that Z declined, can you say that "Y must have declined"? No. Y may or may not have declined - Can't say. Hence, negating (E) kills the conclusion.

I picked D.
Isn't it correct to assume that the number of unemployed people who were employed did not change in the three months.
I am not sure why are we saying that moving to other state is OUT OF SCOPE.

Please explain.

Moving to other state will not affect "nationwide figures".

Nationwide Figures:

State A - 100
State B - 120
State C - 60
... etc


State A - 120
State B - 100
State C - 60

It doesn't really matter, right? Total nationwide figure would be the same.

A reduction in the number of people filing new claims for state unemployment benefits is one of the first signs that a nationwide recession is coming to an end. Usually such a reduction indicates that companies are not dismissing as many people, a sure sign of economic recovery. The number of people collecting state unemployment benefits has dropped considerably over the last three months, so the recession is coming to an end.

Which of the following is assumed in the passage above?

A) A majority of the number of people who became eligible to file unemployment benefits from the state in the past three months chose to do so. The proportion of those who filed out of the eligible group isn't relevant to the argument.
B) The drop in the number of people collecting unemployment benefits from the state cannot be traced to a reduction in the number of people being dismissed from minimum wage jobs. A reduction in dismissals from any particular job class doesn't affect the argument.
C) A substantial number of people who had been collecting unemployment benefits have been rehired by their former employers during the last three months.The argument pertains to a reduction in new claims and fewer dismissals, not rehired people.
D) A substantial number of people have not in the last three months moved from one state where they have collected unemployment benefits to another state where they continue to receive jobless benefits.The premise is based on state benefits in general. Even if they did receive benefits in another state it would be reflected in nationwide data.
E) The reduction in the number of people collecting unemployment benefits from the state is not because of an increase in the number of people whose benefits came to an end. There is no true reduction if many or all of the cases are due to loss of benefits.

Hello,

I was also between A and E, and I managed to choose E!!! Yippie!
But I thought of sth that might be a bit simpler to think about.

I thought that A describes a situation that should be true all year round. That it, people become eligible to collect unemployment benefits throughout the year. So, this is a condition that applies at every time period. If for the past 3 months there are still many people eligible to ask for benefits and haven't done so yet, I guess this would be the case 3 months before that, in the past 4 months, in the past 7 months or in any number of months in the year. So, this shouldn't make any difference.