Hi Shrutika02,Great instinct to ask this, because it gets at what an assumption actually
is in CR.
You're right that the argument already tells us
prices will go up. But look closely at what it does
not tell us: it never says whether the workers'
higher wages keep up with those higher prices. That comparison is simply missing from the stimulus - and that's exactly the gap C fills.
Why C isn't a restatement. The premises give you two separate facts:
- The minimum wage goes up (so low-income workers earn more).
- Businesses raise prices on goods those workers buy.
Notice the argument never connects these two. To conclude workers are
hurt, the columnist needs the price hit to outweigh the wage gain. The stimulus never says that - so it must be
assumed. That's C.
An assumption is an unstated link, not random new info. It doesn't have to be a brand-new topic dropped from the sky. It's the missing piece that has to be true for the premises to actually lead to the conclusion. C is "in line with" the argument precisely
because a good assumption sits snugly between the evidence and the conclusion - it just happens to be the part left unsaid.
The negation test makes this concrete. Flip C: suppose the raise
does wholly compensate workers for the higher prices. Then workers come out even or ahead - and the columnist's "this hurts them" conclusion collapses. Because negating C destroys the argument, C is a necessary assumption, not a repeat of given data.
Quick everyday parallel to feel it:
"My rent went up this year, so I'm worse off."
What's unstated? That my
raise didn't cover the rent increase. If it did, I'm fine. The speaker is silently assuming the raise falls short - same move the columnist is making. That hidden comparison is the assumption.
Answer: CShrutika02
Hi, small doubt. I got the reason behind C but I also feel that option C is in lines which the already mentioned data. Since assumption is supposed to be new information, I am a bit confused as to how can this be an assumption?