With a record number of new companies starting up in Derderia and with

With a record number of new companies starting up in Derderia and with previously established companies adding many jobs, a record number of new jobs were created last year in the Derderian economy. This year, previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year. Therefore, unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created.


a) Each year, new companies starting up create more new jobs overall than do previously established companies.

If they do so, it is possible that D will have more jobs created this year but our conclusion says otherwise.

b) Companies established last year will not add a greater number of jobs overall this year than they did last year.


Isn't this already stated in the stimulus?

c) This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.

IMO, Correct. Negate this. New Companies will provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year. So There is a chance that the new jobs this year will break the last year's record. If we look at the stimulus it reaches the conclusion that total number of jobs created will be less than last year based on the lesser number of jobs created by established companies. So the missing piece is the new start ups will not hire massively to set a new record.


d) This year, the overall number of jobs created by previously established companies will be less than the overall number of jobs lost at those companies.

Unrelated. we are not talking about the net jobs and whether the net jobs (created-lost) is positive or negative
e) The number of jobs created in the Derderian economy last year was substantially larger than the number of jobs lost last year.

Unrelated.

I say C

Correct Answer Should be C


Conclusion: Therefore, unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created.
New jobs must NOT be created by some alternate way.

The conclusion talks about the number of companies .

For Derdia to break its record for new jobs created and the number of companies to start up this year to be atleast equal to last year, the number of jobs created per company should be more.

Derdia break its record for new jobs:
Last year 4 companies 3 jobs per company= 12 jobs
1. Increase in number of companies and same number of jobs = 6 companies and 3 jobs per company = 18 jobs(Record Broken)Already stated in Conclusion
OR
2.Same number of companies and increase in number of jobs = 4 companies and 5 jobs per company = 20 jobs
(Record Broken) Alternate way mentioned in C

new jobs created = jobs created by new companies + new jobs added by established companies

The stimulus says that the established companies will not be adding as many new jobs as they did last year. Hence for the number of new jobs created this year to be greater than that created last year, number of jobs created by new companies this year should be greater than that created by the new companies last year.
The argument concludes that this can be possible only if number of new companies this year is greater than the number of new companies last year. The conclusion can hold only if we assume that the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.

Hence C.

GMATNinja GMATNinjaTwo

Hi GMATNinja, I have a question regarding option C. As I was doing my analysis, I noticed something. Our conclusion mentions "unless a record number of companies start up this year". This part, doesn't it already take into the assumption of what option C is saying? I was able to get to the option C by POE but I am trying to understand the logic behind it. As option B, can we not say that option C is also included into the conclusion? Or am I reading too much? Please help!

Thank You!

Here's the argument, one more time:

The conclusion is that Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created, unless a record number of companies start up this year. Here's how the author gets to this conclusion:

• Last year, previously established companies in D added many jobs.
• Last year, a record number of new companies started up in D.
• As a result of these two things, a record number of new jobs were created in D last year.
• This year, previously established companies in D are not adding as many jobs as they did last year.
• Therefore, D will not break its record for new jobs created this year, UNLESS D also breaks its record for number of companies started up.

The thing that jumps out at me here is that the conclusion is focused on the number of jobs created, but it tells us that this number will depend on the number of companies starting up. We still don't have any idea how many jobs these new startup companies create! That's a big gap to keep in mind as we review the answer choices that you're inspecting.


Just like you've noticed, this choice gives us no new information, and it doesn't fill the gap. So eliminate (B).


This choice doesn't repeat information that's already in the argument. It tells us new information about how many jobs will be created by the new startup companies. And it definitely bridges the gap in this argument, by letting us know that each of these new startup companies will not provide substantially more jobs than new companies did last year. This reinforces the conclusion: that D will not break the overall record for new jobs this year. That's why (C) is the best available choice.

The language being thrown around is similar and repetitive, which makes things a bit tough to follow. But this all comes down to the fact that the argument never tells us how many jobs are being created by new startup companies, and choice (C) fills in that gap.

I hope this helps!

I don't think C is necessary assumption here and OA is wrong.

Answer cannot be C.

Here's my reasoning-

Let's say there are 3 new companies starting up with 10 new jobs each and one established company which will give 50 more jobs. Hence total number of jobs-

10+10+10+50= 80

Now as per stimulus established companies are not adding as many jobs as they did last year, so the in worse case scenario- the number of jobs drop to 1 from 50.

Now lets negate C-

This year, the new companies starting up will provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.

So for example new companies provide more jobs per company than new companies last year (note- we don't really know what SUBSTANTIALLY means here, it can be 20,30,40 etc)

For example, new companies provide 10 more jobs than last year. Total number of jobs = 20+20+20= 60

Total number of jobs created (new startups + established companies)= 60+1= 61. Which is much less than 80.

This is true whats given in question stem and DOESN'T DESTROY THE ARGUMENT. HENCE IT CAN'T BE THE ANSWER.

Negation of assumption SHOULD 100% DESTROY THE ARGUMENT.

Where am i doing wrong? Please help me.

So what is the infamous "negation test", exactly? Well, you go with the opposite of the assumption, and if that breaks the argument, you've found your answer! Sounds suspiciously simple. But unfortunately, we've written countless "negation test gone wrong" posts.

What went wrong here? Let's start with the conclusion:

"...unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created."

Pretty strong statement! This basically says that there is NO way for Derderia to break its record for new jobs created, UNLESS a record number of companies start up this year. So if we can come up with ANY way for Derderia to break its record for new jobs created WITHOUT having a record number of companies start up this year, then we've broken the argument.

And that's pretty easy to do. Let's say that a new company called, say, Amazin, comes to Derderia and opens up a giant business complex that will employee 100,000 people. Even if that's the ONLY new company that year and established companies only add a handful of new jobs, that 100,000 figure could be enough to crush last year's record, EVEN THOUGH we certainly don't have a record number of companies starting up this year (we only have one: Amazin).

As written, this argument has a gaping hole. We can easily come up with a scenario that contradicts the conclusion. So how do we make this argument/conclusion airtight? Well, we need to ensure that situations like the one just described cannot happen. And that's exactly what choice (C) does: it tells us that new companies like Amazin will NOT provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year. And if that's the case, it's impossible to come up with a scenario that breaks the argument.

In attacking this assumption question, don't ask yourself, "What is the opposite of this choice, and does that break the argument?" (in other words, don't rely on the "negation test"). Instead, ask yourself, "If I DON'T make this assumption, what is possible -- and do any of those possibilities break the argument?"

The key word there is "possible." Sure, you can come up with a scenario in which (1) new companies provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year and (2) the conclusion still holds. But that doesn't matter. All that matters is that without (C), we can come up with possible scenarios that break the argument.

In other words, the argument is not airtight without (C). And that means that (C) is, indisputably, the right answer.

I hope that helps!

in the premise: 'This year, previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year.

can I safely say that last year companies will be adding some jobs if not same as last year. So, even after some contribution from previous companies, author feels that a greater no of start-ups are needed this year.

Clearly he is assuming that this year per start-up less jobs will be created than were created last year ( am I making a grammatically right comparison or it can be more concise)

Technically, the answer to this question is no. "Not as many new jobs this year as last year" can mean that some jobs are added (but not as many as were added last year), but can also mean that zero jobs are added this year.

These two cases don't end up having differential effects on the argument, though. Both of them end up telling you that existing companies are going to create fewer jobs this year (where "fewer jobs" might even be zero jobs) than they did last year—so that the correct answer will tell you that some other segment of the market (= startups) can make up that deficit.

Conclusion - A RECORD NUMBER of companies are required to break the record. Why? How about 1 company adding 10,000 (impactful number of jobs) than 1000 companies adding 3 jobs each.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

(A) Each year, new companies starting up create more new jobs overall than do previously established companies. - in a way, it strengthens the conclusion, but strengthener is not an assumption which is a necessary condition.

(B) Companies established last year will not add a greater number of jobs overall this year than they did last year. - Argument already shared it. Not a new information. For an assumption question expect a piece of new information that falls within the scope of the argument.

(C) This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year. - in line with our pre-thinking. This is our required assumption and its negation will break the conclusion.

(D) This year, the overall number of jobs created by previously established companies will be less than the overall number of jobs lost at those companies. - at best it strengthens the conclusion. We are looking for an assumption (necessary condition) and not a strengthener.

(E) The number of jobs created in the Derderian economy last year was substantially larger than the number of jobs lost last year. - This comparison is outside the argument scope. Out of scope.