Consumer advocate: There is no doubt that the government

Question

Consumer advocate: There is no doubt that the government is responsible for the increased cost of gasoline, because the government’s policies have significantly increased consumer demand for fuel, and as a result of increasing demand, the price of gasoline has risen steadily.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the consumer advocate’s argument?

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the consumer advocate’s argument?

(A) The government can bear responsibility for that which it indirectly causes.

(B) The government is responsible for some unforeseen consequences of its policies.

(C) Consumer demand for gasoline cannot increase without causing gasoline prices to increase.

(D) The government has an obligation to ensure that demand for fuel does not increase excessively.

(E) If the government pursues policies that do not increase the demand for fuel, gasoline prices tend to remain stable

Source: LSAT

broall · Accepted Answer

Done in 3 mins

The argument is: Gov's policies => increase consumer demand for fuel => increase the price of gasoline Conclusion: Gov is responsible for the increased cost of gasoline. Now check each choice. (A) The government can bear responsibility for that which it indirectly causes. Correct. As the increase in gasoline prices is the consequences of goverment's policies, the author assumes that the goverment is responsible for it's policies' indirect consequences (B) The government is responsible for some unforeseen consequences of its policies. This choice is somewhat true and relevant to the argument. However, we can't know that the increase in gasoline prices is the unforeseen consequences of government's policies or not. The passage didn't mention anything about the forecast of the government. Choice A is better. (C) Consumer demand for gasoline cannot increase without causing gasoline prices to increase. I think this choice could be a trap since we use reverse way, which is the common way to solve CR questions, to check the argument. In fact, this choice is irrelevant to the argument because the argument did state that the increase in demand for gasoline caused the increase in gasoline prices. (D) The government has an obligation to ensure that demand for fuel does not increase excessively. This choice is irrelevant. (E) If the government pursues policies that do not increase the demand for fuel, gasoline prices tend to remain stable This is a really good trap. In choice E, if demand for fuel didn't increase, gasoline prices tend to remain, so the government isn't responsible for the increased cost of gasoline. However, the gasoline prices isn't necessarily stable. What if the prices go down in case that the demand didn't increase but decrease instead?

nightblade354 · Answer

Consumer advocate: There is no doubt that the government is responsible for the increased cost of gasoline, because the government’s policies have significantly increased consumer demand for fuel, and as a result of increasing demand, the price of gasoline has risen steadily.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the consumer advocate’s argument?

Premise: Because the government’s policies have significantly increased consumer demand for fuel
Premise: As a result of increasing demand, the price of gasoline has risen steadily 
 Conclusion: There is no doubt that the government is responsible for the increased cost of gasoline

Here is our diagram: Government Policy ---> Leads to Increased Consumer Demand ---> Increased Gas Prices

We need to bridge the first and last claims, otherwise this does not work as an argument; the assumption, one of many, being that responsibility falls on the Government's shoulders.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the consumer advocate’s argument?

(A) The government can bear responsibility for that which it indirectly causes. --  BINGO. If the Government cannot for indirect things (see diagram above; this is indirect) then it cannot be responsible in this instance. Perfect answer

(B) The government is responsible for some unforeseen consequences of its policies. --  Who is to say that this is a consequence? Who is to say this is unforeseeable? Do not make further assumptions to make this work!

(C) Consumer demand for gasoline cannot increase without causing gasoline prices to increase. --  negate it: Consumer demand CAN increase without causing gas prices to increase......AND? What if this time is the time it does or doesn't? Further, how would this bridge any gap above? Tempting answer.

(D) The government has an obligation to ensure that demand for fuel does not increase excessive. --  We have an obligation? OK, and? How would this destroy our argument? This is a worthless tidbit meant to throw you off. This is trying to make you think: Good government -- hold prices low. But who cares?

(E) If the government pursues policies that do not increase the demand for fuel, gasoline prices tend to remain stable --  Two things wrong with this. "prices tend". Really? So, what if they do not do so this time? Further, how does this destroy our argument or bridge any gap? Further, what if prices remain stable after a period of time (let's say they rise for a day, but then hold steady for 10 years? wouldn't this qualify as stable?). This does not weaken our argument. 
 
ALSO : Negation of (E) is: "If the government.......gasoline prices tend to not remain stable". We do not want to say "if the policies that do  not  increase....." Knowing this, you can see why (E) is wrong.

Takeaways: Diagram the question so you can keep your eye on the prize. And make to negate the proper item. If is a statement where you see two phrases and one has a "no" in it, do not cross out that "no"; Negate the second statement.

godot53 · Answer

The correct answer is A, and not B. So, B is in fact not a much better option. 
The problem with B is with the word "unforeseen", and we have no clue from the argument whether government expected or did not expected the price increase. All we know that the government took some initiative and its associated result.

sai897 · Answer

I still didn't get why E is not the answer.

Due to gov policies demand increased and also the price of fuel. So the assumption could be if policies didn't have effect on fuel demand then price could be stable.

Where did i missed my logic?  egmat

godot53 · Answer

Two primary reasons, 
1. The correct answer in an assumption question must connect the premise and the conclusion, or work within the gap between the premise and the conclusion. 
The main conclusion is : "There is no doubt that the government is responsible for the increased cost of gasoline", so the correct one must, in some way, relate to this conclusion. E deals only with the premise. 
2. E can also be treated as out of scope. 
The primary condition of the argument: "government’s policies  that have significantly increased  consumer demand for fuel", while E changes the condition to "government pursues policies  that do not increase  the demand for fuel". 
Eliminate E

No.
"If the government’s policies have significantly increased consumer demand for fuel, the price of gasoline will rise steadily". is not same as,
"If the government’s policies have not significantly increased consumer demand for fuel, the price of gasoline will rise steadily". Either consider it from #2 above that changes the condition, or consider it from "If X, then Y" is not equal to "if not X, then Y"
the correct one would be,
"If the price of gasoline did not rise steadily, the government’s policies would not have significantly increased consumer demand for fuel". But, in this question this would also have been incorrect as #1.

Avinash_R1 · Answer

courtesy : PowerScore

Assumption—CE. The correct answer choice is (A)

The premises suggest that the government’s policies caused an increase in the demand for fuel, which—in turn—caused the price of gasoline to rise. The consumer advocate concludes that the government is therefore responsible for the increased cost of gasoline.

There is a distinct logical gap in this argument. While the government may have directly caused the increase in consumer demand and therefore indirectly caused the increase in gas prices, this does not automatically imply that the government is responsible for the increase in prices. “Responsibility” is a rogue term in the conclusion, and the assumption of this argument is likely to play a Supporter role by connecting responsibility to the fact that the government indirectly caused gas prices to increase.

Answer Choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice is a classic Supporter Assumption that connects the premises to the conclusion. In order to establish that the government bears responsibility for increased gas prices even though they only indirectly caused the increase in gas prices, the government must be able to bear responsibility for things they indirectly cause. Applying the Assumption Negation Technique, if the government cannot bear responsibility for things they indirectly cause, such a government would not be held responsible for the increase in gas prices.

Answer Choice (B): The information in this answer choice is extraneous to the argument. The rise in gas prices may have been a foreseeable consequence of the government’s policies. Since this answer choice does not necessarily apply to the argument, it is not required for the argument to be true.

Answer Choice (C): This answer choice suggests that an increase in consumer demand for gasoline requires an increase in gasoline prices. While increased consumer demand caused a rise in gasoline prices, the author does not have to assume that the former requires the latter. Causal arguments rarely assume conditional relationships. Furthermore, this answer choice does not attempt to link the “rogue” term in the conclusion to the rest of the argument.

Answer Choice (D): This answer choice strengthens the argument by outlining the government’s obligation to ensure that demand for fuel does not increase excessively. However, the author does not need to assume that the government has this obligation. Even if the government did not have an obligation to prevent excessive increases in the demand for fuel, they might still be responsible for the increase in fuel prices.

Answer Choice (E): The government did pursue policies that increased the demand for fuel, so this answer choice does not apply to the stimulus. Also, the author already established that increased consumer demand caused the increase in fuel prices. The author does not need to assume any additional connection between these two premises.

nightblade354 · Answer

A fun and challenging LSAT assumption question that I am bumping for discussion.

Chei · Answer

Choosing an answer after spending 3min on it and it ends up irrevant ???

Posted from my mobile device

Raj30 · Answer

Why do I find A and D parallel?
If government has no obligation to control demand, then how can it be held responsible for an increased price which is an effect of demand?
Also, if we apply the negation test to option E, 
'If the government pursues policies that increase the demand for fuel, gasoline prices tend to remain stable'....This goes against the arguement
Where am I going wrong?

GMATNinja · Answer

To differentiate between answers (A), (D), and (E), remember that the question asks us to find an "assumption required by the consumer advocate’s argument." This means that for the argument to be logically sound, the correct answer choice  must  be true.

First, let's take a look at the key pieces of the passage:

The advocate concludes that " the government is responsible for the increased cost of gasoline."  
 She/he supports that conclusion by stating that "the government’s policies have significantly increased consumer demand for fuel, and as a result of increasing demand, the price of gasoline has risen steadily."

Now, apply this understanding to the answer choices in question:
 
The author states that government policies have increased consumer demand for fuel, and this in turn has caused the price of gasoline to increase. Notice that the increase in price of gasoline is an  indirect  result of the government's policies. The author then concludes that the government is responsible for the increased cost of gasoline. For this conclusion to be logically sound, it is necessary to establish the government can, in fact, bear responsibility for that which it indirectly causes.

Answer choice (A)  must  be true in order for the argument to be logically sound, so (A) is the correct answer.

Now take another look at (D):
 
The advocate's argument makes a claim about what the government  has done , not what the the government  has an obligation to do . Whether or not the government "has an obligation to ensure that demand for fuel does not increase excessively," the fact remains that government’s policies have increased consumer demand for fuel, and as a result of increasing demand, the price of gasoline has risen steadily. Based on this, the advocate concludes that the government is responsible for the increase in fuel prices.

The advocate may well agree with the sentiment of answer choice (D), but it is not an assumption required by his/her argument. (D) is out.

You state in your analysis that negating (E) "goes against the argument." Remember that we are not looking to strengthen or support the argument -- we are looking for an assumption  required  by the argument. Because the argument does not depend on the information in (E) (what if, for example, gasoline prices  decrease  if the government pursues policies that do not increase demand?), this is not an assumption required by the argument. So we can eliminate (E).

I hope this helps!

hero_with_1000_faces · Answer

Initally I thought the answer was "A", however when i saw "can bear", i eliminated A.

I think correct version should have been "Government is responsible" what does can bear mean ? has the capacity to bear responsibility as in Public Litigation or some public outcry leading to lack of votes ?

As this is LSAT question, I think i'll have to accept the answer here.

rounakkedia172 · Answer

My pre-thinking was if the govt. had not selected the policies it did then demand for fuel would not increase and consequently the price would not rise too. In short policies is the cause.

Negated : Govt shouldn't be blamed in a situation in which without its policies the demand of fuel would still rise.

Which is why I selected E.

Where did I went wrong?

CrackverbalGMAT · Answer

Hi Rounak

The stimulus tells us that, "the government’s policies (X) have significantly increased consumer demand for fuel (Y)". In other words X --> Y. This does not mean that X is the only cause of Y or Y can only be caused by X. Your claim that " if the govt. had not selected the policies it did then demand for fuel would not increase" is not supported by the facts in the stimulus.

To elaborate, yes, policies have caused price rise but we cannot state that they are the  only  cause based on the information given in the stimulus. Therefore, we cannot be sure that without such policies, the price would not rise.

Hope this helps.

hadimadi · Answer

Policy change -> Increase in Demand for Fuel -> Increased Prices -> Government Fault. Why government fault? (A) Negate the statement: The government can't bear responsibility for what it indirectly causes. Then it can also never be the governments fault, as it indirectly (knowingly or not) cause an increase in price. Correct (B) We don't know if the consequences, namely the fuel price increasing, was unforeseen or not. Out (C) (no increase in demand -> no increase in price) <-> increase in price -> increase in demand. This tells us nothing about why it could be the governments fault. Out (D) We don't know if they increased excessively or just increased by a small amount daily. Out (E) (Non-demand increasing policy -> stable prices) <-> unstable prices -> demand increasing policy. It could be that the prices are unstable in that they drop every day by a significant percentage, but that wouldn't imply that the demand increased necessarily

RiyaJ0032 · Answer

either this is a poorly worded stem or your explanation misses something

the thing is, that govt being responsible need not be the same as to whether he can bear responsibility for it's actions or not

some one can be responsible for the crime one committed yet be so minor that one cannot bear responsibility for it

Likewise, you equate bearing responsibility = being responsible
and you say , if one is not bearing responsibility one cannot be responsible

this is illogical

on the other hand, C validates the assumption that govt is infact the culprit (or in other words, govt is responsible for the price increase), whether he bear responsibility for it or not is altogether a different matter

C strengthens the assumption that price hike was not caused by something else but by govt itself

making it the only viable option here

if any expert would like to clarify, please go ahead!

Thanks
 DmitryFarber 
 MartyMurray

GMATNinja · Answer

To "bear" a responsibility means to accept that you ARE responsible for something. So, yes, we will maintain that if you "bear" the responsibility for something, then you are responsible for that thing.

Perhaps you are saying that you can be responsible without RECEIVING a punishment? But that's different: you still bear the responsibility regardless of whether or not you are punished.

Feel free elaborate on this example if you still have an objection:

As for choice (C), we're looking for an assumption that is REQUIRED. (C) might be  sufficient  and it might  strengthen  the argument, but it is not a required assumption.

For example, if there is an increase in demand AND an increase in supply, the price could stay the same or even decrease. Just because that didn't happen in this example doesn't mean it isn't  possible .

In other words, the argument works even if consumer demand for gasoline CAN increase without causing gasoline prices to increase. That  possibility  doesn't change the facts in  this particular  example: demand has increased, and the price of gasoline has risen steadily.

I hope that clears things up!

SudsMeister · Answer

GMATNinja  what if option C had the word 'must' instead of 'can'?
For instance, what if option C read like this:   Consumer demand for gasoline must not increase without causing gasoline prices to increase.
 
I apologise for the somewhat awkward (or maybe wrong) phrasing, but I want to get some clarity around a doubt.
What if the negation of option C read as:  Consumer demand for gasoline must increase without causing gasoline prices to increase.

In this case does option C become a required assumption and a suitable answer choice?

Consumer advocate: There is no doubt that the government

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

Consumer advocate: There is no doubt that the government

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