We can use a negation test for assumption questions. If the negated answer choice breaks the argument, then it is a necessary assumption.
(A) Without the proposed hub, most shipments would bypass the remote region entirely.
Negation: Without the proposed hub, most shipments go through the remote region entirely.
This kinda weakens the argument, but it doesn't break it. The hub can still increase the shipments, and so increase the bonuses.
(B) The federal government awards bonuses based on total shipment volume passing through a region, not just on shipments delivered locally.
Negation: The award bonuses are only for shipments delivered locally.
This breaks the argument. If the award is only for what is delivered to businesses inside the region, then the shipment passing through the hub does not qualify for bonuses at all, so an increase in its volume does not affect the bonuses.
So this is the correct answer choice.
(C) The regional government would only share bonuses if the new hub directly benefited local businesses.
Negation: The regional government would share bonuses even if the new hub doesn't directly benefit local businesses
This does break the argument at all. If anything, it strengthens it, which means the answer choice weakens the argument, and is not an assumption.
(D) Routing shipments through the new hub would not make delivery times longer than shipping via current routes.
Negation: Routing shipments through the new hub would make delivery times longer than shipping via current routes.
This does not break the argument. The delivery time is irrelevant to the argument and had no effect on the bonuses or shipment volume.
(E) Businesses in the remote region currently account for a small proportion of the shipping company’s national shipments
Negation: Businesses in the remote region currently account for a big proportion of the shipping company’s national shipments
This does not break the argument. It suggests that shipping volume is already big, but it does not say it can't increase, so the argument could still stand.
The answer is B. Bunuel
To encourage economic development in remote regions, the federal government pays regional governments a bonus based on the total volume of goods delivered to businesses within their region. A shipping company proposes building a national distribution hub in one such region, routing most national shipments through the hub before final delivery elsewhere. In exchange, the company requests a share of the bonuses, arguing that the regional government would greatly profit from the substantial increase in shipment volume.
The company’s argument depends on which of the following assumptions?
(A) Without the proposed hub, most shipments would bypass the remote region entirely.
(B) The federal government awards bonuses based on total shipment volume passing through a region, not just on shipments delivered locally.
(C) The regional government would only share bonuses if the new hub directly benefited local businesses.
(D) Routing shipments through the new hub would not make delivery times longer than shipping via current routes.
(E) Businesses in the remote region currently account for a small proportion of the shipping company’s national shipments.