That gadget I bought for the kitchen last week has already broken. It’

The author first provides us with a fact: "That gadget I bought for the kitchen last week has already broken."

Then, he/she connects it to a general trend: "It’s just another example of the shoddy products that we are seeing more and more of these days."

Finally, the author throws out a claim: "The thing was probably manufactured in East Golo."

Notice that there's really no support provided for that final claim. Why the heck does the author think that this thing came from East Golo? That's what we're trying to find in the answer choices -- an unstated premise that underlies the author’s reasoning.


(A) specifies that shoddy materials are the main issue. But the author doesn't care about what, exactly, made the product break -- it could be materials, or poor assembly, or anything else. Singling out shoddy materials doesn't help us connect the dots and understand why the author thinks that the gadget comes from East Golo.

Eliminate (A).


This provides exactly the support that we need! The author relies on an unstated idea that the gadget is likely from East Golo because it broke quickly. (B) connects the dots from the fact at the beginning to the claim at the end.

Keep (B).


The author doesn't make any statements about what should happen -- he/she only makes a claim of what probably DID happen. So, (C) isn't a premise that underlies the author's argument.

Get rid of (C).


This doesn't quite connect the dots in the argument. The author has a broken gadget, and we're trying to understand why he/she believes it comes from East Golo.

(D) gives us a hypothetical about East Golo -- what if everything from there breaks quickly? Then the kitchen gadgets from there would break quickly. The issue is that we have no evidence that everything that is manufactured in East Golo breaks quickly, so we have no idea if the bit about the kitchen gadgets follows.

(D) is out.


(E) flips the logic of the passage. Saying that gadgets that DO break are probably from East Golo is different than saying that EVERYTHING from East Golo breaks.

Imagine this scenario: 100 things are manufactured in East Golo, and 5 of them break within a week. 100 things are manufactured elsewhere, and none of them break within a week.

In this scenario, you can claim that something that breaks is probably from East Golo, even if not everything from East Golo breaks. After all, 95 things from East Golo didn't break!

That's why (E) is not a premise underlying the author's argument, and (B) is the correct answer.