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 ExplanationQuestion 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 _________________
EMPOWERgmat
Total GMAT Content & Tactical Training | 120 Point Guarantee | All 6 Official GMAT Tests
empowergmat.com