Editorial: Our city's public transportation agency is facing a budget

First note that all options need not be negated. Learn to identify the irrelevant options right away to save time.

When negating a conditional statement, we negate the main clause.

"If A, then B" negation is "If A, then not B"

Also note that "negation" is not "opposite". It is the complimentary set.
So negation of "B must happen" is NOT "B must not happen."
It would be "B can happen or may not happen". Basically, we don't have strong feelings for whether it should or should not happen. Either is acceptable.

Negation of
If accepting cuts would not be in the employees' best interest, the union should not accept cuts.
will be
If accepting cuts would not be in the employees' best interest, the union may or may not accept cuts.
_________________

Did you notice a nice little Trap in B?
(I did not and took me 10 mins to figure it out)

Here is the 1-sentence explanation why B is wrong: B says there is only one way of resolving budget shortfall which is service+job cuts. I missed this while reading. The stem presents these as alternatives to each other but B presents them as a single solution. Did you catch it?

(B) The only feasible way for the agency to resolve the budget shortfall would involve cutting transportation service and eliminating jobs.

If (B) said the only ways (plural), it would have been harder to eliminate. D is still more GMAT-like where it tackles the main rather than peripheral argument.

This is why every word on CR matters. If you missed this question and feel as silly as I do, make sure you fix your attention on the next question and notice the plural vs. singular. It is a nice little trap.
_________________

Hi VeritasKarishma



When one negates B, negated B becomes

The only feasible way for the agency to resolve the budget shortfalf MAY OR MAY NOT involve cutting transportation service and eliminating jobs

Option (B) is tangential to our argument.

Note that as per our argument, the means to resolve budget shortfall is "retirement benefit cuts". If budget shortfall is not resolved, the result will be "cutting transportation service and eliminating jobs". Cutting transportation & eliminating jobs is not how you resolve budget shortfall. That will be the impact of budget shortfall in case it is not resolved.

Hence the argument is not assuming that "cutting transportation & eliminating jobs" is the only way to resolve budget shortfall. It is suggesting that cutting retirement benefits is a way to resolve budget shortfall.

Also, when you negate (B), you get:

(B) The only feasible way for the agency to resolve the budget shortfall would involve cutting transportation service and eliminating jobs.
Negated (B) There are other feasible ways to resolve budget shortfall too.

But we already know that. One way has already been discussed in our argument (cutting retirement benefits). It does not negate the conclusion.
_________________

Where does it say this? ie, the Official explanation reasoning that you state.

This reasoning is deduced.

We are given that there is a budget shortfall i.e. money is short.
Retirement benefits are very generous i.e. a lot of money is given to retirees.
If more money is not generated/saved, services will be cut and employees may start losing their jobs.

Hence, the conclusion is that reducing retirement benefits to save money (so that services are not cut and employees do not lose jobs) is in the best interests of employees.

The assumption of course is that reducing retirement benefits will lead to saving enough money so that services are not cut and employees do not lose jobs.
Otherwise, their retirement benefits will be cut and still jobs will be lost. So it will become a lose-lose for the employees.
_________________

Hi GMATNinja - how do you re-phrase (A) and (E) ?

The double negatives (marked in red) coupled with the "IF STATEMENT" [underline] is very hard to wrap your head around

Public Transportation Budget

Step 1: Identify the Question

The word assumption in the question stem indicates that this is a Find the Assumption question.

Step 2: Deconstruct the Argument

Budget shortfall

ERB generous, fastest growing cost

Don’t fix budget → Cut service, job losses

© Accept cuts to ERB

Note: ERB is used as an abbreviation for employee retirement benefits.


Step 3: Pause and State the Goal

On Find the Assumption questions, the correct answer should be necessary to draw the conclusion. Remind yourself of the key logic of the argument: accepting cuts to retirement benefits is in the best interest of employees (because doing so will prevent job losses).


Step 4: Work from Wrong to Right

(A) The argument is not concerned with the motivations of the union or what the union should do in general. Although the conclusion states that the cuts would be in the employees’ best interest in this case, whether the union would accept the cuts for this reason or for some other reason (for example, the negotiation is easier) is not relevant.

(B) This answer weakens the conclusion. The conclusion is based on a belief that if the union accepts the benefit cuts the budget shortfall can be resolved without cutting service and jobs.

(C) If anything, this answer weakens the argument. If employees prefer generous retirement benefits, then it is less likely that accepting cuts to these benefits will be in their best interest.

(D) CORRECT. This answer establishes that the potential savings from cutting retirement benefits could actually resolve the budget shortfall (and subsequently prevent service cuts and job losses). While the argument states that employee retirement benefits are the fastest growing part of the budget, it does not discuss the portion of the budget retirement benefits make up. Consider the Negation Test for further proof; the negation of a correct answer will ruin the argument. The negation of this answer is “Cutting retirement benefits might not help resolve the budget shortfall.” If the budget shortfall is not resolved, then services get cut and jobs are lost: the plan will fail.

(E) The specific motivations of the union are not relevant. The argument depends on the union choosing to accept the cuts to retirement benefits, but the union could do so for a variety of reasons: to save jobs, to get raises for some employees, or because they are bad negotiators.

Like this:
The transportation employees' union should accept cuts in retirement benefits "only" if doing so would be in the employees' best interest.

0Lucky0 - is the blue statement you wrote above, a re-phrase of (A) or is the blue statement a negation of A ?

Thank you so much KarishmaB. Just following up on negated B

Negated (B) There are other feasible ways to resolve budget shortfall too.

Just to crystalize my understanding of Negated B

Does the negation EXCLUDE "cutting transportation service and eliminating jobs" as a method to resolve the budget shortfall ?

I don't think Negated B excludes "cutting transportation service and eliminating jobs" as a method to resolve the budget shortfall, correct ?

re-phrase. Neat trick. Isn't it?

Yes 0Lucky0 -

Could you go over the theory as to how you know about this ? what is the theory behind this ?

What do you think of my re-phrases in these simple analogies ?

I am not sure if what you have posted is allowed here. I mean, it's off-topic. So would most likely look like spam to others.

Hi KarishmaB - is my negation accurate for (a) and (e) ?

theory :
If A, then B

Negation is – If A, then may or may not be B


(Option A)
If cuts in retirement benefits are not in the employees' best interest, union should not accept cuts in retirement benefits

(Negation A)
If cuts in retirement benefits are not in the employees' best interest, union may or may not accept cuts in retirement benefits

(Option E)
If cuts in retirement benefits will not allow more transportation employees to keep their jobs, the union will not accept cuts in retirement benefits.

(Negation E)
If cuts in retirement benefits will not allow more transportation employees to keep their jobs, the union may or may not accept cuts in retirement benefits.

Hi avigutman - I have seen multiple opinions on why (A) is wrong. I didn't think I got a very good understanding.

Here is my analysis on (A) and why (A) is wrong

• (A) can re-phrased in positive terms, thereby making (A) easier to follow.
• (A) re-phrased is "Union should accept (cuts in retirement benefits) ONLY IF (cuts in retirement benefits) ARE IN THE INTEREST OF employees.

• The reason why (A) is wrong is because (A) is an inference of the red conclusion
• Essentially (A) and the red conclusion are the same.
• If you say the red conclusion, you are by definition, also saying (A)
• Hence, (A) is NOT AN ASSUMPTION but rather just a inference on the red statement

Answer choice (A) makes a claim about what the union SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do. We can't infer that based on anything in the argument, jabhatta2. Furthermore, I can't think of any argument for which such a claim (about what someone should or shouldn't do) could be a necessary assumption.
_________________

Thanks so much avigutman - I am afraid I am not a 100 % sure how to eliminate (A).

While I do agree (D) has to be true – I am unable to eliminate (A).

Too me – (A) has to be true/ necessary to go from the intermediate conclusion /premise (red font) to the final conclusion (blue font)



2nd attempt) Here is my attempt on why (A) is wrong

I first have to re-phrase (A) as the following



I dont think we need re-phrased (A) to be 100 % true to go from the red to the blue. I am not able to enunciate why though

I think if there was an additional option (F) that said



I think (option F) is necessary to go from the red to the blue

The blue font makes a claim about what would be in the employees' best interest, jabhatta2. Not about what the union's interests are, nor about what the union should do. For example, it's possible that the union doesn't care at all about the employees' best interest, and that wouldn't undermine the editorial's conclusion.

Correct. Notice how this doesn't make any claims about the union?
_________________