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.
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.
C) A substantial number of people who had been collecting unemployment benefits have been rehired by their former employers during the last three months.
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.
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.
Question:
Someone please tell why (A) isn't correct?
A drop in the number of new claimants filing for benefits is an indicator that the recession is ending. The new claimants are the relevant group. Choice E eliminates the possibility that the reduction came from a different group: people who had already been collecting. By eliminating this possibility, choice E strengthens the argument. Whether people choose to file is irrelevant. Whether they do file is all that matters. Thus A is incorrect. In B, the type of work, minimum wage or otherwise, is irrelevant. Employers who rehired people are also irrelevant; therefore C is incorrect. Choice D is incorrect because what state people live in is irrelevant. The argument is about the data for state unemployment in general.