According to the new office smoking regulations, only employees who

Question

According to the new office smoking regulations, only employees who have enclosed office may smoke at
their desks + virtually all secretarial employees lack enclosed offices. The smoking regulations should allow all employees who smoke an equal opportunity to do so, regardless of an employee’s job level --> Therefore, secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices.

Which of the following is an assumption that enables the conclusion above to be properly drawn?

(A) Employees at the professional level who do not smoke should keep their enclosed offices.

(B) Employees with enclosed offices should not smoke at their desks, even though the new regulations permit them to do so.

(C) Employees at the secretarial level should be allowed to smoke at their desks, even if they do not have enclosed offices.

(D) The smoking regulations should allow all employees who smoke an equal opportunity to do so, regardless of an employee’s job level.

(E) The smoking regulations should provide equal protection from any hazards associated with smoking to all employees who do not smoke.

The regulations allow some employees – those with enclosed offices – but not others the opportunity to smoke at their desks. If it is assumed that the regulations should allow all employees equal opportunity to smoke, those who are currently denied this opportunity should be given it, and so secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices. Therefore, choice D is the best answer.

None of the other choices enables the conclusion to be properly drawn. Choice A tends to conflict with the conclusion, unless some enclosed offices are vacant. Choice B supports no conclusion about how secretaries should be treated, and choice C undermines the conclusion. Finally, nonsmokers already have equal protection from hazards, so choice E cannot be used to justify making any changes.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Premises: Only employees who have an enclosed office may smoke at their desks. Employees with enclosed offices are at the professional level All secretarial employees lack enclosed offices. Conclusion: Secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices. Why does the author conclude that secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices? Because he believes that all those who smoke should be offered to smoke at their desks. Only then does the conclusion make sense. (D) The smoking regulations should allow all employees who smoke an equal opportunity to do so, regardless of an employee’s job level. Correct. This is something the author believes. He suggests giving an equal opportunity to smoke at the desk to all employees regardless of their job level by offering enclosed offices to secretarial staff that smoke. (E) The smoking regulations should provide equal protection from any hazards associated with smoking to all employees who do not smoke. The smoking regulations have restricted smoking at the desk for all until and unless they have enclosed offices. So no one is allowed to smoke in public. Hence all those who do not smoke are already safe. There is already equal protection for all employees who do not smoke. Now in light of these regulations, the author suggests what should be done next. That those who smoke should be offered enclosed offices. That smokers should be given equal opportunity. That is option (D), not option (E). Answer (D) Some discussions on Assumptions: https://youtu.be/O0ROJfljRLU A pair of difficult assumption questions: https://youtu.be/ZQnhC4d5ODU A Hard Assumption Ques: https://youtu.be/0j4tovGifIg

pqhai · Answer

ANALYZE THE STIMULUS:

Fact:  ONLY  employees who have enclosed offices may smoke at their desks. 
Fact: Virtually all employees  with enclosed offices are at the professional level , 
Fact: Virtually  all secretarial employees lack enclosed offices .

Conclusion:  secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices.

This is a very classical and good example of “ supporter assumption ” (for more detail, you can read Power Score CR – Bible). Because the conclusion has a  GAP , the supporter assumption will close the gap so that the conclusion is correct.

The gap is the different job level which creates a different opportunity to smoke between professional vs non-professional. Thus, the assumption should fill this gap.

Which of the following is an assumption that enables the conclusion above to be properly drawn?

ANALYZE EACH ANSWER:

A) Employees at the professional level who do not smoke should keep their enclosed offices.
 Wrong.  A just tells the opportunity of having enclosed offices between professional employees who smoke and professional employees who do not smoke is equal. A does NOT LINK anything to opportunities of secretaries, thus A does not help to hold a conclusion.

B) Employees with enclosed offices should not smoke at their desks, even though the new regulations permit them to do so.
 Wrong.  If Employees with enclosed offices do not smoke at their desks, why secretaries should smoke and have own enclosed offices?. B indirectly destroys the conclusion.
 
C) Employees at the secretarial level should be allowed to smoke at their desks, even if they do not have enclosed offices.
 Wrong.  If they are allowed to smoke without enclosed offices, why they still need enclosed offices? C is clearly wrong.
 
D) The smoking regulations should allow all employees who smoke an equal opportunity to do so, regardless of an employee’s job level.
  Correct.   D shows that all employees will have equal opportunity to smoke. In addition, ONLY employees who have enclosed offices can smoke. Clearly, they should have enclosed offices if they smoke.

E) The smoking regulations should provide equal protection from any hazards associated with smoking to all employees who do not smoke.
 Wrong.  Out of scope. Nothing about “any hazards”.

Hope it helps.

boomtangboy · Answer

Hi

Here is my reasoning for choosing D

(A) Employees at the professional level who do not smoke should keep their enclosed offices. - Irrelevant
(B) Employees with enclosed offices should not smoke at their desks, even though the new regulations permit
them to do so. - Irrelevant & Not mentioned in the question stem
(C) Employees at the secretarial level should be allowed to smoke at their desks, even if they do not have
enclosed offices. - Opposite of the Question Stem -> Smoking allowed only in enclosed cabins
(D) The smoking regulations should allow all employees who smoke an equal opportunity to do so, regardless
of an employee’s job level. - This would be the correct assumption
(E) The smoking regulations should provide equal protection from any hazards associated with smoking to all
employees who do not smoke. - Irrelevant

Hope this helps :-)

shadabkhaniet · Answer

premise1: only employees who have enclosed office may smoke at their desk professional level employees who have enclosed office may smoke at their desk.
premise2: all secretarial employees lack enclosed offices
conclusion: Therefore, secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices

mourinhogmat1 · Answer

According to the new office smoking regulations, only employees who have enclosed office may smoke at
their desks   +   virtually all secretarial employees lack enclosed offices. The smoking regulations should allow all employees who smoke an equal opportunity to do so, regardless of an employee’s job level   -->   Therefore, secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices.

ballest127 · Answer

Hi Expert

Please explain how the conclusion that secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices relates to any premises in the question.

In D, I still don't understand how it bridge the gap between the conclusion and premises given.

Thank you

KanishkM · Answer

Conclusion : secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices

So basically there is no partiality between secretary and boss.

We we take that into consideration, only D resonates with that
(D) The smoking regulations should allow all employees who smoke an equal opportunity to do so, regardless of an employee’s job level.

If we negate this
The smoking regulations should allow some employees who smoke an equal opportunity to do so, regardless of an employee’s job level.
So they do show partiality in giving enclosed offices.

MartyTargetTestPrep · Answer

Conclusion of the Argument:

Secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices.

Premises of the Argument:

According to the new office smoking regulations, only employees who have enclosed office may smoke at their desks.

Virtually all employees with enclosed offices are at the professional level, and virtually all secretarial employees lack enclosed offices.

There is a big gap between the premises and the conclusion.

The premises merely indicate that secretaries don't have offices and, therefore, will not be in a position to smoke at work.

One could easily respond to that information by saying that it's unfortunate that secretaries who want to smoke at work will not be able to, but this author instead concludes that secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices.

So, in going from that information to the conclusion, the author must be relying on some unstated assumption necessary for connecting the premises to the conclusion.

By adding (D) to the argument we can fill the gap between the premises and the conclusion.

With (D) we have:

Secretaries would not be in a position to smoke under the new regulations because they don't have offices -->

(D) The smoking regulations should allow all employees who smoke an equal opportunity to do so, regardless
of an employee’s job level. -->

Secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices.

dcummins · Answer

The argument is that secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices.

This is based on the fact new regulation mandates that only employees who have enclosed offices be allowed to smoke, but virtually all secretaries lack these types of offices.

We are asked to find the missing link - the assumption

A - This may be true, but its not required for the argument to be true. It has no impact on the argument. Incorrect
B - This goes against the premise. The conclusion is derived on the basis that secretaries who smoke currently don't have an office. Thus, incorrect.
C - This also goes against the facts. Incorrect
D - This must be true for the conclusion to be true. All staff need equal opportunity in order for the office to comply with the legislation. Correct
E - This goes beyond the argument. Incorrect

Pathania141995 · Answer

please explain the conclusion and premise in this as i am bit confuse .

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi

In an assumption based question, the premise(s) and conclusion have a causal relationship. In other words, we should be able to point out X --> Y, which, in words, is that "X causes Y" or "X, therefore Y". The final decision that is arrived at is the conclusion, and the fact(s) which is/are taken into account to arrive at that conclusion is/are the premise(s). The conclusion is often (though not always) marked by words such as "therefore", "hence", "thus" etc. The premise(s) can be identified by asking the question "why" to the conclusion.

In this question, the final decision that is arrived at, is: "...secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices". This is the conclusion. Now, if we ask "why", or, "in what basis" to the conclusion, the following facts are relevant:

i) According to the new office smoking regulations, only employees who have an enclosed office may smoke at their desks. 
ii) Virtually all employees with enclosed offices are at the professional level, and virtually all secretarial employees lack enclosed offices.

These, therefore, are the relevant premises.

Hope this clarifies.

playthegame · Answer

This felt like a different question, or more like a sufficient assumption question. I think when the stem says "helps in conclusion to be properly drawn" it feels like a sufficient assumption question.

bb · Answer

This is a pretty old question... maybe just a different style of writing?

playthegame · Answer

Yes fair enough, I think I was thinking about the LSAT preptests I think somewhere I read about differences on how the stem is formed....

Kavicogsci · Answer

Is this a fair reasoning that the reason E is not correct because even if I wanted all non smokers to be protected from hazards of lets say passive smoking I could just ask the secretaries to get up and smoke outside - why would my conclusion then be so in favour of secretaries getting an office?
 carcass   AjiteshArun

carcass · Answer

(E) The smoking regulations should provide equal protection from any hazards associated with smoking to all employees who do not smoke.

This is just a general statement or truth that we could know about the huge risks of passive smoking. It is not related at all with the unstated assumption of the argument.

After all, I do not think the logic chain of the argument itself is that difficult.

Those who have closed paces can smoke >>> who smokes is a professional >> the secretarial stuff lacks both: space to have - in case - the possibility to smoke if they wanna and the qualification of a professional.

From the above, the assumption is related to equal opportunity for those who are NOT professionals.

D is easy to find out

I hoe this helps

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi Kavicogsci,

The "even if" part of your response is important, because we typically should try to avoid introducing anything extra. Instead, focus on the line of reasoning given to us. This question has both support and conclusion, but  we need to provide a missing link that makes the connection between the two better (sound) .

1. Secretaries don't have EO.
2. Only employees with EO may smoke at their desks.
3. Therefore, secretaries who smoke should be offered EO.

What can help us go from (1) & (2) to the conclusion (3)?

Option E  tells us that non-smokers should be given equal protection from any smoking-related hazards.  This goes far beyond the scope of this argument, which is just about allowing secretaries who smoke to smoke at their desks.

Let's think about what providing non-smokers equal protection from all smoking-related hazards may involve. Maybe we'd need to stop smokers from smoking at places other than their desks, or stop them from smoking in the presence of other employees, or install some kind of air filtration + gas/vapour removal system. The point is that option E doesn't give us any reason to think that the  new  regulations should give secretaries the right to smoke at their desks.

Option D , on the other hand, is a great fit. The new regulations are going to restrict {smoking at desk} to employees with EO. Secretaries don't have EO. On the basis of this logic, if we're going to argue that secretaries who smoke should therefore be given EO, we're assuming that they should be given the right to smoke at their desks in the first place.

Kavicogsci · Answer

AjiteshArun  Thanks for such a wonderful explanation.

Yes the para where you have explained a few reasons of what implementation of option E would look like was what I was trying to do with my reasoning to solidify whether E could be a suitable answer. Is that a wrong approach? Because we also generally say having some basic practical knowldege is also tested on the exam.

AjiteshArun · Answer

Hi Kavicogsci,

I'm glad my explanation helped. You're right about basic outside knowledge in CR, but in  assumption questions like this one , we want to follow the author's line of reasoning very closely. This is important, because the question asks us to provide the missing link for that particular line of reasoning.

The author starts by introducing  new  office smoking regulations. Then they tell us that there are (at least) two types of employees: ~professional and secretarial. The professional employees have offices, but secretaries don't. The new regulations will allow only employees with offices to {smoke at desk}. At this point the author suddenly jumps to the conclusion "Therefore, secretaries who smoke should be offered enclosed offices".

Imagine that you are the person who made the new regulations. You'd find the conclusion a little odd, because for all you know, it's perfectly okay to allow one group to smoke at their desks but not allow another group the same right. That is, why do we need to make an effort to accommodate secretaries who smoke? Why can't we just treat them differently?

In other words, if it's okay to restrict that right to only one group, then the author's argument doesn't follow at all from the given support. That is, there's no logical basis to suddenly claim that secretaries should also be given offices. That's one way to see that in the author's line of reasoning, he or she is assuming that anyone who smokes should have the right to smoke.

According to the new office smoking regulations, only employees who

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

According to the new office smoking regulations, only employees who

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards