The argument follows a causal line of reasoning i.e The falling value of dollar will result in the cheapest (argument mentions "cheaper to get wood pulp from US than to get from any other source") cost of US wood pulp, so the Exports of wood pulp will rise considerably during this year.

Possible Assumptions:
1. Criteria/factors other than cost are met or same for US wood pulp and wood pulp from other sources.
2. Cost is the only factor which affects the choice paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe to buy American wood pulp

Answer Choices:
B) The quality of the wood pulp produced in the United States would be adequate for the purposes of Japanese and Western European paper manufacturers. - This is along the lines of Assumption 1 stating "Quality" as a factor other than "Cost" which is adequate for the Japanese and Western European paper manufacturers. A necessary condition for the conclusion to be true with the given line of reasoning in the argument.

C) Paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe would prefer to use wood pulp produced in the United States if cost were not a factor. - Here we have a conditional statement with
sufficient condition -> cost were not a factor, necessary condition -> Paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe would prefer to use wood pulp produced in the United States. From this we can infer that Cost is one of the factor (not the only factor). This definitely Strengthens (by adding a new information that Cost is one of the factors for Japanese and Western European paper manufacturers which affects the choice of selecting US wood pulp) the argument but it is not a necessary condition for the conclusion to be true. Thus, cannot be an assumption.
The reason this can't be a necessary condition is that even if Cost is one of the factors, we will need to further assume that other factors are same for US Wood Pulp. Without that assumption, the conclusion will break.

The key takeaway here is that all assumptions are strengtheners, but not all strengtheners are assumptions.

Incase there is any flaw in my reasoning or improvement opportunity, feel free to share your views with me.

Take a closer look at (A):


(A) describes a situation in which Japanese and Western European (J/WE) production of paper products will INCREASE sharply. So, because we’re asked for an assumption, does it have to be true that factory output of paper products will increase sharply in J/WE for us to conclude that exports of US wood pulp will rise considerably? Not necessarily. Even if J/WE production remains constant, US exports could increase as J/WE use US wood pulp for a greater proportion of their output because the US wood pulp is cheaper than before.

For that reason, (A) does not have to be true, and we can eliminate it.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Read this article from Manhattan. It will help to understand why option C is wrong.

https://www.manhattanprep.com/lsat/blog ... -the-lsat/

AndrewN

Need your help in eliminating option C.
_________________

Hello, warrior1991. I have a little time before my first lesson, so I thought I would offer a full analysis of the answer choices, (C) included. I am uploading a color-coded image for discussion.


The first line of the passage is the conclusion or, in this case, the prediction. The second provides the reasoning for drawing that conclusion, conveniently starting with The reason for... I know that for assumption questions, many people prefer the negation technique; however, I prefer a "missing link" strategy. All I do is arrange the premise ahead of the conclusion and drag and drop an answer choice between the two to test for the missing link, keeping in mind that the GMAT™ adheres to as straightforward a logic as possible.

Choice (A) fails because we are not at all interested in production trends of paper products from Japan or Western Europe. The reason for the prediction given in the passage is that buying American wood pulp will be cheaper than getting it from any other source. The premise and prediction do not match up with this information wedged in between.

Premise: It will be cheaper for paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe to buy American wood pulp than to get it from any other source.

Assumption: Factory output of paper products in Japan and Western Europe will increase sharply during this year.

Conclusion: [Therefore] Exports of United States wood pulp will rise considerably during this year.

No, that does not work. It begs the question of why the U.S. wood pulp would be needed; domestic outputs sound robust on their own, not to mention that we have no idea about the demand for paper products in Japan or Western Europe.

Choice (B) works because the exports would be nothing more than cheap trash unless the argument presupposes that U.S. wood pulp would be good enough to meet the standards for Japanese or Western European paper products. Try the same test from before:

Premise: It will be cheaper for paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe to buy American wood pulp than to get it from any other source.

Assumption: The quality of the wood pulp produced in the United States would be adequate for the purposes of Japanese and Western European paper manufacturers.

Conclusion: [Therefore] Exports of United States wood pulp will rise considerably during this year.

Everything checks out. There is a clear and linear progression of ideas from step to step.

Choice (C) fails because we have no idea what paper manufacturers would prefer if cost were not a factor. The reason offered in the passage makes it clear that cost is a factor. Furthermore, maybe such manufacturers prefer their own wood pulp, but if something else comes along that is "close enough" and is also offered at a cheaper price than domestic wood pulp, they would be willing to take a gamble. I think of some of the knockoff replacement products I have bought over the years—ink cartridges and toothbrush heads come to mind—because genuine replacements were quite costly in comparison. (In some cases, my gamble paid off; in others, not so much.) Would I have rather had genuine replacements? Sure. But cost was a factor, just as it is in this passage.

Choice (D) fails because it focuses on demand for Japanese- and European-made paper, and the passage concerns itself with U.S. exports of wood pulp. Besides, who is to say that Japan and/or Western Europe will not make domestically produced paper products out of the U.S. wood pulp? Are consumers in these places concerned with the contents of these paper products, or just where they happen to be produced?

Choice (E) fails because it does not help us get from X to Z in the passage. If the conclusion is that exports of United States wood pulp will rise considerably during this year, then why would it be necessary to assume production of wood pulp by U.S. companies would do anything but rise to meet demand for these exports? This should be an easy answer to cross off.

I hope that helps address your concerns. If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

- Andrew
_________________

Also watch the video on this link

https://7sage.com/lsat-logic-sufficient ... onditions/

Exports of United States wood pulp will rise considerably during this year. The reason for the rise is that the falling value of the dollar will make it cheaper for paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe to buy American wood pulp than to get it from any other source.

Cheaper -> Increased Exports?

Which of the following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

A. Factory output of paper products in Japan and Western Europe will increase sharply during this year.
-> Weakens, Option A implies the price of wood pulp made in Japan and WE will be cheaper also, thus making the market more competitive.

B. The quality of the wood pulp produced in the United States would be adequate for the purposes of Japanese and Western European paper manufacturers.
-> Correct. If the pulp quality in inadequate, entities in the market will not choose to buy US pulp even tough the price became cheaper.

C. Paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe would prefer to use wood pulp produced in the United States if cost were not a factor.
-> Option C merely provides information that some other factors of US wood pulp makes the pulp more intriguing compared to others if cost were not a factor. However, option C does not provide information about whether the decreased price will directly lead to increased exports because no information is given regarding whether the discounted price is cheap enough to choose or what kind of decision entities in the market will make while considering the price of US wood pulp.

D. Demand for paper products made in Japan and Western Europe will not increase sharply during this year.
-> Irrelevant. The demand for paper product does not have direct linkage with pulp exports in US. Exports can increase even under condition that demand for paper product decreased if US wood pulp achieved more competitive edge and market share by lowered price compared to other pulps.

E. Production of wood pulp by United States companies will not increase sharply during this year.
-> Not necessary. Production of wood pulp does not have direct linkage with exports. Even under fixed condition of wood pulp production, exports can still increase if entities in foreign market buy more pulp than before.

(A) Factory output of paper products in Japan and Western Europe will increase sharply during this year.
May be they want it to experimental purpose or some other factor we are not in aposition to determine the same

(B) The quality of the wood pulp produced in the United States would be adequate for the purposes of Japanese and Western European paper manufacturers.
yes this is a factor we need to take into consideration otherwise japan and the other importing countries would be reluctant to buy the product

(C) Paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe would prefer to use wood pulp produced in the United States if cost were not a factor.
We have no clue whether it is due to cost or some other factor they are reluctant to buy the thing

(D) Demand for paper products made in Japan and Western Europe will not increase sharply during this year.
we are not concerned about the factora that least affect exports from us

(E) Production of wood pulp by United States companies will not increase sharply during this year
We are not bothered by the internal matters our only concern being the demand factor
Hence IMO B

Exports of United States wood pulp will rise considerably during this year. The reason for the rise is that the falling value of the dollar will make it cheaper for paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe to buy American wood pulp than to get it from any other source.

Which of the following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?

P : cheaper -> more exports.

A. Factory output of paper products in Japan and Western Europe will increase sharply during this year.
-> Irrelevant. Output of paper products is irrelevant to wood pulp and exports from US unless direct linking is given intertwining wood pulp and paper product.

B. The quality of the wood pulp produced in the United States would be adequate for the purposes of Japanese and Western European paper manufacturers.
-> Correct. If the quality is inadequate, Japanese and Western European paper manufactureres will not buy US wood pulp although the price has been cheaper.

C. Paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe would prefer to use wood pulp produced in the United States if cost were not a factor.
-> The fact that wood pulp from US has been cheaper does not mean that cost is not a relevent factor anymore. Moreover, Japan and Western Europe manufactureres might choose to buy US wood pulp even though they do not prefer to use wood pulp from US if the price is cheap enough to compensate their preference. Thus, option C cannot be the answer.

D. Demand for paper products made in Japan and Western Europe will not increase sharply during this year.
-> No information is given to link demand for paper products and wood pulp exports from US.

E. Production of wood pulp by United States companies will not increase sharply during this year.
-> Irrelevent. Regardless of wood pulp production in US, exports can increase according to law of demand and supply.

But VeritasKarishma we do want them to prefer the US Pulp, if we don't want them to prefer the US pulp then no matter what cost is, they would not buy. Isn't that then become a necessary condition? Please do respond as I have this as a very serious doubt on the questions and thanks for all the lovely answers you have provided to the GC community.

Kind regards,
Kittle

MartyTargetTestPrep I am having trouble eliminating C. Could you help?

The conclusion of the argument is the following:

Exports of United States wood pulp will rise considerably during this year.

The support for that conclusion is that wood pulp from the United States will be cheaper for paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe than other wood pulp.

Let's now consider (C).

(C) Paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe would prefer to use wood pulp produced in the United States if cost were not a factor.

Notice that (C) provides an additional reason why manufacturers will buy United States pulp. They prefer United States pulp.

OK, but does the author need that additional reason in order to make this argument? No, the author has already provided a reason why exports of United States pulp will rise. United States pulp will be cheaper than other pulp. The author doesn't need to assume that there is an additional reason in order for the argument to work.

Some people choose (C) because they perceive it as saying something along the lines of the following:

To paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe, wood pulp produced in the United States is just as good as other pulp if the cost is the same.

However, that's not what (C) says. It says that the manufacturers prefer United States pulp.

Eliminate (C).
_________________

MartyTargetTestPrep just to be sure, does not (D) also provide additional reason that quality of US wood pulp shall be good?

Also, I read option (C) in following manner - even if there are other issues with US wood pulp and cost may be high, US wood pulp would be preferred.

Sorry but I am still not very clear between C and D.

Thanks!

Posted from my mobile device

ThatDudeKnows MartyTargetTestPrep pls explain choice C and why it is wrong. If costs were not a factor and they still preferred it, means their export would increase if say, the costs were taken into consideration as well, because we now know that prices have become cheaper so of course if they take prices into consideration now, they will tend to buy it even more and this is necessary for the conclusion. Not sure why it is wrong.

Additionally 'if cost were not a factor' means that if costs did not matter irrespective of costs being high, low or same. However, I am not sure why have the explanations by experts are saying it means " if costs were equal"

Also can we use choice C to infer anything about what would haappen if costs were a factor: like they would buy more in that case?

As you suggested, "if costs were not a factor" does not mean exactly the same thing as "if costs were equal." It means, "if costs did not matter," possibly because they were equal but also possibly because they were insignificant or for some other reason.

Still, (C) isn't correct because the argument works fine even if (C) isn't true, and here's why.

The argument has already provided support for the conclusion that exports of United States wood pulp will rise considerably during this year. That support is that United States wood pulp will be cheaper than other wood pulp for paper manufacturers.

Now, here's (C).

(C) Paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe would prefer to use wood pulp produced in the United States if cost were not a factor.

Notice that (C) provides an additional reason why exports of United States wood pulp will rise: manufacturers prefer to use wood pulp produced in the United States.

The thing is that the argument doesn't need this additional reason to work. It doesn't need what you termed "even more." The evidence provided supports the conclusion without this additional reason. So, (C) is not an assumption upon which the argument relies.
_________________

Two arguments against C:

First, by analogy:
I live in Miami and would prefer to eat dinner at my favorite, very expensive, restaurant in Los Angeles every night if cost were not an issue.
Let's say I win the lottery. Will I eat dinner at my favorite restaurant in Los Angeles every night? No. My daughter still has school in Miami. So the assumption that I would prefer to eat there every evening has no impact on whether I actually will.

Second, by direct counter argument:
It's entirely possible that Japanese and European customers prefer to use pulp produced in Finland, not the US, if cost were not a factor. But maybe Finnish pulp is crazy expensive this year because of a recent rash of polar bear attacks slowing production, so Japanese and European customers will buy American this year. We just negated the assumption and still got to the conclusion. Oops, there went answer choice C!!
_________________

Hey KarishmaB,

I am having hard time understanding this logic. If other variables (complementing our sufficient condition) are at play as well, why will the export suddenly increase? For example, if US quality was preferred, it was preferred before devaluation as well, the only factor that will change is cost. So, this dynamic is captured better in option C. What am I missing?

Yes, option (C) does lead to the conclusion but is it what the question is asking you for? What the question wants to know is the assumption the author has made, not what will make the conclusion true.

An assumption needs to be true for the conclusion to stand. A sufficient condition does not NEED to be true for the conclusion. So a sufficient condition is not an assumption.

Take a simpler example:

Sana buys and eats an apple everyday.
Cost of US apples is falling and they will be cheaper than all other apples soon.

Conclusion: Sana will start consuming US apples soon.

What am I assuming? That Sana finds the taste of US apples acceptable. What if she doesn't find them acceptable? Will she start consuming them? Unlikely.
Now think about it - for my conclusion to hold, do I NEED that Sana prefers the taste of US apples over all others? No. It is good for my conclusion if this is the case but is it NECESSARY? No. Even if she doesn't prefer their taste over all others, she may still buy them if their cost is lowest and their taste acceptable.
The point is, we need to focus on what the question is looking for. The question wants an "assumption" made by the author.


Check out this blog post too: https://anglesandarguments.com/blog-details/235
_________________