Belmont Industries submitted a proposal to Arklands head provincial

Question

Belmont Industries submitted a proposal to Arkland’s head provincial administrator, recommending the company’s thin salt-layer spray, which can be applied to city streets to make deicing and snow-removal considerably more efficient. However, the provincial administrator is likely to recommend that Belmont’s spray not be implemented in its road-maintenance program because the spray would add to the already strained provincial seasonal road-maintenance budget.

Which one of the following is assumed by Arkland’s provincial administrator?

A. Belmont’s salt-layer spray does not provide any benefits other than for deicing and snow-removal.
B. Adding agents other than Belmont’s salt-layer spray are likely to cost the province even more.
C. Arkland’s winters typically stay within a narrow temperature range from winter to winter, but snowfall can vary considerably.
D. Funds saved from implementation of Belmont’s salt-layer spray would not exceed the cost associated with the spray's implementation. 
E. Arkland’s current deicing and snow-removal program does not already utilize the least expensive of available alternatives.

CR ASSUMPTION SERIES: 1) Belmont Industries

48 Hour Window Answer & Explanation Window  
 Earn KUDOS!  Post your reasoning why the answer you chose is correct, and why the other 4 options are incorrect within 48 hours of this post.
OA, and explanation will be posted after 48 hour window closes.

Scroll Down For Official Explanation

◀ CR WEAKEN SERIES: Question 3) Frequency-Dependent Foraging

▶ CR ASSUMPTION SERIES: Question 2) Violent Forms of Robbery

ENGRTOMBA2018 · Answer

CR ASSUMPTION SERIES: 1) Belmont Industries

Belmont Industries submitted a proposal to Arkland’s head provincial administrator, recommending the company’s thin salt-layer spray, which can be applied to city streets to make deicing and snow-removal considerably more efficient . However,  the provincial administrator is likely to recommend that Belmont’s spray not be implemented in its road-maintenance program   because the spray would add to the already strained provincial seasonal road-maintenance budget.

Text in green: Premise
Text in Red: Conclusion
Text in blue: Counter Premise as it goes against the conclusion presented by the PA (Provincial Administrator).

The argument presents the benefits of the new sprayer of the Belmont Industries. Still, the city's PA does not want to utilise the new sprayer for deicing and snow removal as doing so will further strain the provincial seasonal road-maintenance budget.

Prethinking: Assumption is an additional premise/information that will bridge the gap between the premises and the conclusion and thus make the conclusion even more possible. The argument presents the key characteristics that might help the city but still the PA does not want to use it for cost concerns. The argument fails to provide any information on the actual costs of the new sprayer. Thus , additional information for the cost of the new sprayer will bridge this gap. Choice D does exactly that.

Which one of the following is assumed by Arkland’s provincial administrator?

Ⓐ Belmont’s salt-layer spray does not provide any benefits other than for deicing and snow-removal.
 Incorrect: This choice weakens the argument by reducing the benefits of the new sprayer. As per this choice, cost is not a benefit provided by this new sprayer.

Ⓑ Adding agents other than Belmont’s salt-layer spray are likely to cost the province even more.
 Incorrect. Irrelevant. Other agents are not in the scope of this argument.

Ⓒ Arkland’s winters typically stay within a narrow temperature range from winter to winter, but snowfall can vary considerably.
 Incorrect. This choice strengthens the need for an efficient new sprayer. Thus, this choice weakens the argument.

Ⓓ Funds saved from implementation of Belmont’s salt-layer spray would not exceed the cost associated with the spray's implementation. 
 Correct. This choice is correct as per the prethinking above and thus provides additional information that makes the conclusion more believable.

Ⓔ Arkland’s current deicing and snow-removal program does not already utilize the least expensive of available alternatives. 
 Incorrect. This choice weakens the conclusion that cost is an issue. As per this choice, the city is already not utilizing the least expensive option and thus cost of the new sprayer is not a sufficient justification for rejecting Belmont Industries' sprayer.

apoorv601 · Answer

Hi Max,
The conclusion of the argument is - Belmont’s spray not be implemented in its road-maintenance program because the spray would add to the already strained provincial seasonal road-maintenance budget
Premise - Belmont Industries recommended the company’s thin salt-layer spray; The spray can be applied to city streets to make deicing and snow-removal considerably more efficient
Assumption - In rejecting the proposal the govt. might have assumed that the savings from the use of the spray would not be enough to balance and exceed the costs that it would add to the budget.

POE - 
Ⓐ Belmont’s salt-layer spray does not provide any benefits other than for deicing and snow-removal. -  Even if it does provide other benefits, this option does not shed light how implementing the proposal would justify/or will not justify its costs in the budget.

Ⓑ Adding agents other than Belmont’s salt-layer spray are likely to cost the province even more. -  This also doesn't justify the cost associated wd implementing Belmont’s salt-layer spray and also the argument doesn't says that adding a agent is necessary for deicing and snow-removal

Ⓒ Arkland’s winters typically stay within a narrow temperature range from winter to winter, but snowfall can vary considerably. -  This goes out of context a little, if snowfall varies, then it necessitate the evaluation performance of the proposed spray, if it is necessary for the removal of snow that the govt decision might be wrong

Ⓓ Funds saved from implementation of Belmont’s salt-layer spray would not exceed the cost associated with the spray's implementation.-  This matches the pre-thinking, the govt when taking the decision of not implementing the proposed spray assumes that the benefits/costs saved from implementing it would not exceed the costs involved.

Ⓔ Arkland’s current deicing and snow-removal program does not already utilize the least expensive of available alternatives. -  This assumption would be true if cost of implementation were the only evaluation criteria; in the sentence the cost of the proposed spray is not compared with other options, thus it cannot be said that govt. has assumed this in rejecting the proposal.

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

CR ASSUMPTION SERIES: 1) Belmont Industries

Belmont Industries submitted a proposal to Arkland’s head provincial administrator, recommending the company’s thin salt-layer spray, which can be applied to city streets to make deicing and snow-removal considerably more efficient. However, the provincial administrator is likely to recommend that Belmont’s spray not be implemented in its road-maintenance program because the spray would add to the already strained provincial seasonal road-maintenance budget.

Which one of the following is assumed by Arkland’s provincial administrator?

Ⓐ Belmont’s salt-layer spray does not provide any benefits other than for deicing and snow-removal.
Ⓑ Adding agents other than Belmont’s salt-layer spray are likely to cost the province even more.
Ⓒ Arkland’s winters typically stay within a narrow temperature range from winter to winter, but snowfall can vary considerably.
Ⓓ Funds saved from implementation of Belmont’s salt-layer spray would not exceed the cost associated with the spray's implementation. 
Ⓔ Arkland’s current deicing and snow-removal program does not already utilize the least expensive of available alternatives.

Official Explanation

Question Type  : Assumption
  Boil It Down   (Simplified & Abbreviated Summary of the Prompt): Spray would add to budget, so shouldn’t be used.
  Missing Information (assumption)  : The argument mysteriously seems to leave out any possible savings in other aspects of Arkland's road-maintenance program if the spray were implemented.
  Goal  :  Find the option that contains missing information required for the argument to logically function.

Note  :  The Opposite Test  – Since by definition an assumption is a piece of missing information required for the argument to work, if we take the opposite of a valid assumption the argument will collapse. Therefore, we can use the Opposite Test with the options. Just take the logical opposite of the option and ask: does the argument collapse? If not, the option is wrong. If yes, it’s the correct option.

Let’s see which option best achieves the goal:

Ⓐ The spray doesn’t need to have any other benefits than to aid in deicing and snow-removal. This option is not required by the argument. The Opposite Test: Belmont’s salt-layer spray does provide benefits other than for deicing and snow-removal. If we take the opposite of this option, the administrator’s argument still stands, therefore this option is not required.

Ⓑ This option is violently Out of Focus. The administrator isn’t assuming that anything be added to the spray. The Opposite Test: Adding agents other than Belmont’s salt-layer spray are not likely to cost the province even more. Taking the opposite of this option has no logical impact on the argument. The option might as well be talking about Polar Bears.

Ⓒ This option is also Out of Focus. The administrator’s reasoning doesn’t require any information about the degree by which snow levels vary. The Opposite Test: Snow levels don’t vary considerably. No impact, so incorrect.

Ⓓ This is absolutely required by the argument. The administrator is assuming that the savings from use of the spray wouldn’t outweigh the cost. Because if the savings were greater than the cost, then her reasoning wouldn’t make sense. If the spray could enable the province to cut back in other areas, then the spray could actually save the province money even though the spray itself costs more. Let’s try the Opposite Test here, and notice how the argument collapses: Funds saved from implementation of Belmont’s salt-layer spray would exceed the cost associated with its implementation. Yep. The argument completely crumbles if we take the opposite of this option, so it’s correct.

Ⓔ This option discusses the cost of the various alternatives, but the argument doesn’t require the spray to be the least expensive among them to use. The opposite test: Arkland’s current deicing and snow-removal program does already utilize the least expensive of the available alternatives. No impact. The argument could still stand. In fact, the Opposite Test here actually has somewhat of a reinforcing effect on the argument, so definitely out.

D is the only option among the 5 required for the argument to work.

◀ CR WEAKEN SERIES: Question 3) Frequency-Dependent Foraging

▶ CR ASSUMPTION SERIES: Question 2) Violent Forms of Robbery

apoorv601 · Answer

Hi Max,
Thanks for the great explanation! I require one additional information about assumptions questions
Can we always use "The Opposite Test" in all assumption questions? And in what other CR question types can "The Opposite Test" be used?

Regards,
Apoorv

EMPOWERgmatVerbal · Answer

Hi Apoorv,

I'm glad you asked. The Opposite Test can be wildly powerful if a test-taker knows when and how to apply it. Since an assumption is a piece of information necessary for the argument to work, we can prove whether an answer is necessary by taking the opposite of it.  The Opposite Test  is something you can use to confirm whether a piece of information is required by the argument (an assumption).

Where the Opposite Test Can Be Applied  
Since assumptions are in play in with all of these questions, it's use goes beyond just assumption questions:

Assumption
Strengthen
Weaken
Evaluate

The reason why The Opposite Test gets a lot of attention with Assumption questions specifically is because you can use it to assess whether each option is required by the argument, so it's a great tool to eliminate the 4 wrong options.

The Gist of How The Opposite Test Is Applied on Assumption Questions:  
If an option is wrong, then taking the opposite of it will have no impact on the argument, hence the answer is not necessary for the argument to work. If an option is correct, then taking the opposite of it will destroy the argument.

FYI: There's a lot more on the Opposite Test, and Assumption questions in module 3.4 of the course.

apoorv601 · Answer

Hi Max,
Thanks a lot for the explanation. Have given you a kudos!!:):)

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Belmont Industries submitted a proposal to Arklands head provincial

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

Belmont Industries submitted a proposal to Arklands head provincial

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