Bunuel
A certain new banking firm was created as a joint venture of the companies that had previously been the sole owners of X Bank and the Bank of Y brands. When this new firm began closing down several X Bank locations, the firm encouraged customers of those locations to switch to using Bank of Y instead, but many of the customers refused. The new firm's CEO concluded from this and the fact that the company that owned X Bank originally is still intact, that the customers of X Bank who refused to switch did so because they were more loyal to the bank's brand name than to the bank's ownership.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the CEO's reasoning depends?
A. All of the customers who switched were aware that a new firm owned both bank brands.
B. At least some of the customers who refused to switch instead became customers of other banks.
C. The customers' refusal to switch was based on reasons related to loyalty.
D. At least some of the customers who switched did so because of loyalty to the new firm.
E. Most of the customers who refused to switch were unaware that the companies that owned the two bank brands had merged.
Premises:Two banks meregd - X Bank and Y Bank.
It began closing several X bank locations and asking those customers to switch to Y bank.
Many customers refused. (Why? Not given. May be they don't like bank Y, may be they prefer another bank. May be bank Y locations are far from their homes etc.)
Original company that owned bank X is still intact and still the owner.
Conclusion of CEO of jv: the customers of X Bank who refused to switch did so because they were more loyal to the bank's brand name (Bank X) than to the bank's ownership (the company that owns it).
The CEO concludes the reason for refusing to switch as loyalty to brand X and not to the owners of brand X.
A. All of the customers who switched were aware that a new firm owned both bank brands.Out of scope. The customers who switched are out of scope for us. We are talking about the reasons of those who refused to switch.
B. At least some of the customers who refused to switch instead became customers of other banks.The point is why did they refuse to switch to Y. What they did after refusing to switch to Y is irrelevant. Did they not go to any bank? Did they become customers to another bank? It's irrelevant to us.
C. The customers' refusal to switch was based on reasons related to loyalty.Correct. Note that the premises do not mention loyalty at all. The conclusion concludes that they refused because of this type of loyalty, not that type of loyalty. The assumption here is that it sure had something to do with loyalty. As we discussed before, what if it was just a matter of far away locations of bank Y or bad infra of bank Y etc? We are assuming that the refusal was based on reasons related to loyalty.
D. At least some of the customers who switched did so because of loyalty to the new firm.Again, the customers who switched are out of scope for us.
E. Most of the customers who refused to switch were unaware that the companies that owned the two bank brands had merged.We are not assuming that they were unaware. If anything, he is assuming that they are aware that the two have merged and that is why he claims that they are not loyal to the bank ownership. To claim that the customers are loyal to the brand name and not to owners, it is essential that the customers know that the owners are still the same. Hence, as given, the option is opposite of a possible assumption.
This is a trap answer.
Answer (C)
Discussion on Assumption Questions:
https://youtu.be/O0ROJfljRLUA Hard Assumption Question:
https://youtu.be/0j4tovGifIg