Crismore wrote:
GMATNinja wrote:
Ridhimajain96 wrote:
I choose E
because if workers will accept a package of improved benefits in place of their desired wage increase then there will be no need to sell subsidiaries. Since the conclusion says that they will sell subsidiaries that means they assume that there is no other way ( improved benefits ) but increase wages to stop the strike
C is the obvious result after selling the subsidies I can't understand y C is right
thanks in advance
Quote:
The conclusion above is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?
(A) Bell Manufacturing will begin to suffer increased losses.
(B) Bell’s management will refuse to increase its worker’s wages.
(C) The workers at Bell Manufacturing will not be going on strike.
(D) Bell’s president has the authority to offer the workers their desired wage increase.
(E) Bell’s workers will not accept a package of improved benefits in place of their desired wage increase.
The author correctly reasons that some of Bell's subsidiaries will have to be sold in order to avoid a strike. But we can only accurately conclude that some of the subisidiaries will be sold IF we assume that the strike is to be avoided. What if the strike is simply allowed to happen? What if the president doesn't care whether the workers go on strike? If that's the case, there would be no reason to sell the subsidiaries.
Thus, the argument relies on the assumption stated in choice (C).
As for choice (E), we are already told that workers at Bell Manufacturing will shortly go on strike unless the management increases their wages.
This statement describes a NECESSARY condition. In order to avoid a strike, management MUST increase wages. Since we are given this fact, we have to assume that no other solution will prevent the strike.
Choice (E) simply restates something that is already implied by this premise. The author does not have to make this assumption since we are already given the fact that only a wage increase will prevent a strike.
I hope this helps!
GMATNinja I think in the highlighted part you meant that the statement described is a SUFFICIENT condition, since a sufficient condition leaves no room for assuming other possibilities, but a necessary condition actually does it. Let me know whether I am correct or not?
Sorry that I'm late to the party here! You raise a great question -- what's the difference between a necessary condition and a sufficient one?
Well, a sufficient condition allows a conclusion to be drawn. For example, if my friend Albert lives in Iceland, is that SUFFICIENT to conclude that he lives on earth? Yes, it is. However, it isn't necessary. To live on earth, it isn't absolutely NECESSARY that you live in Iceland.
Let's take that the other way. If my friend lives in Iceland, then living on earth is a NECESSARY condition for that to be true. But it isn't SUFFICIENT. In other words, just because Albert lives on earth doesn't mean he lives in Iceland.
Let's apply that logic to answer choice (E):
Quote:
Bell’s workers will not accept a package of improved benefits in place of their desired wage increase.
Notice this isn't SUFFICIENT to reach the conclusion. Just because workers "will not accept a package of improved benefits in place of a wage increase" doesn't mean some of Bell's subsidiaries will be sold. Even if the workers don't accept the package, we don't
have to conclude that some of Bell's subsidiaries will be sold.
Put another way -- even if (E) is true, other outcomes besides Bell selling subsidiaries are possible. Maybe the president will simply allow the workers to go on strike, in which case Bell wouldn't have to raise wages or sell subsidiaries?
Bottom line, since (E) doesn't guarantee the conclusion, it isn't sufficient.
However, (E)
is necessary. We need to assume that Bell's workers will NOT accept the package. Because if they did, the strike could be avoided without raising wages or selling subsidiaries. Since we're looking for a SUFFICIENT condition, however, not a NECESSARY one, (E) is incorrect.
I hope that helps!