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

Hey Jabhatta,

It's funny you mention the LSAT, here, because I don't like this question for the GMAT because it does feel so much like an LSAT question! But, it is an OG GMAT question, and every now and then, they go down this road.

It is a necessary assumption question.

The conclusion is: "Employees best interest is for union to accept retirement cuts."

Premise:
1). There is a budget shortfall.
2). Very generous retirement benefits fastest growing part of budget
3). If budget shortfall not fixed, less transportation, many employees will lose jobs.

So, I ask myself my usual question: "How could conclusion be false, but premises be true?"

So I'm wondering: why would it NOT be in their best interest to cut retirement benefits, even though all those premises are true?

Well, one think I note is that it's never explicitly made clear that cutting retirement benefits... solves the shortfall. Meaning, we could cut retirement benefits, there could STILL be a shortfall, jobs could STILL get lost, and then on TOP of that the retirement benefits are less! That's not in the employees best interest.
The author's big assumption is that cutting retirement benefits will save the jobs... or at least, that NOT cutting benefits will result in lost jobs... (these are, in fact, logically different).

A says "If cutting benefits in employees best interest, union should not accept."

The 'should' here alone makes me a little queasy... Nothing in the argument is about what people SHOULD or SHOULDN'T do, but about what IS or IS NOT in the employees' interest... The question isn't about *ethics* but about *efficacy*. That alone makes A out of scope.

E says, "If accepting cuts to retirement does not save jobs, union will not do it. "

That's nice of the union, but that does not really confirm that cutting retirement benefits WILL save jobs. And similar to A, just as the argument is not about 'Should or should not,' the argument is also not about what the union WILL or WILL NOT do. It's about what WILL or WILL NOT be in the employee's interest. That is the *entire scope* we care about. Not whether the union SHOULD or WILL act in the employees' best interest, but what WOULD BE the employees' best interest.

As an analogy, consider the argument:

"Steak has a lot of protein, so it is in Reed's best interest to eat lots of steak."

The pertinent question is "Is eating lots of steak in Reed's best interest, since steak has protein?"

The question is NOT: "Should Reed do what is in his best interest?" or "Will Reed do what is in best interest?" So saying "Reed will do what is in his best interest" or "Reed should do what is in his best interest" has no bearing on whether eating lots of steak is in his best interest.

D is the best answer. It shows that cutting benefits would STOP the shortfall, so at the very least, a shortfall wouldn't be the cause of any lost jobs (in the purest logic, it's still possible there will be 'job loss' in the world of 'D', but D deals with the primary cause of job-loss we're concerned with, here: the budget shortfall).