If the county continues to collect residential trash at current levels

As with basic definition of assumption-"Assumptions are unstated premise that if proven wrong, will make the argument weak."
The conclusion is "imposing a fee will save the parkland". Now the choise A says that the residents will purchase less and hence produce lesser garbage.
Lets is it is proven wrong, means residents will not purchase less. Is this affects the conclusion? No. Because the residents can purchase more and dump their garbage at some other area.
Now lets check option C. If it is proven wrong means "The collection fee will induce residents to dump their trash in he parklands illegally.", the conclsion is weakend. So "C" is correct choice.

Conclusion :- Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland.

Intent is to protect parkland from becoming landfills - I will go with option C , reasoning mentioned below

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy. - This can be valid , however low number of products does not necessarily translate in to less trash

(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out. - not related as there is no discussion on purchasing power
(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.
This looks most valid
(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents.
- not related
(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash.
- If landfills outside the country borders can be used then this will solve the problem and there is no need for charge
_________________

Conclusion: Charging collection fee willl make the house hold to reduce the trash and this will protect the county parkland from becoming landfils.
Premise: The increasing amount of trash will make the current landfill overflow and will need to change the county park land as Land fills.

Cause - effect

Assumption:
1) Charging is the only option will make the residents to reduce the trash
2) Even when Residents are charged with collection fee the land fills should not overflow.

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy. - Buying capacity has nothing to say for the trash that is produced
(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out. - Purchasing power is irrelevant for the conclusion
(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally. - Apt answer for the 2nd assumption - Says - X(Collection fee) occurs then y (Landfills will not over flow) will occur . Negating again breaks conclusion - collection fee will induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally. - X(Collection fee) occurs then y (Landfills will not over flow) will not occur
(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents. - Beauty is irrelevant for the conclusion
(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash - irrelevant

I picked D . often forget to negate the answer choice.

Picked D too, but after analysis understood WHY C is right. Just forgot that an assumption have according to CR Bible two roles: acting as a supporter and as a defender. So if there are no gaps in the argument -> Use assumption as a defender, that means, sliminate answer choices that could weaken a conclusion... So C can weaken a conclusion.....

Actually, if I had negated answer choices C and D -> Negating C would hurt the conclusion.

If the county continues to collect residential trash at current levels, landfills will soon be overflowing and parkland will need to be used in order to create more space. Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland.

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

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy.
(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.
(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parkland illegally.
(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents.
(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash.



Premises ---If the county continues to collect residential trash at current levels, landfills will soon be overflowing and parkland will need to be used in order to create more space.

conclusion--- Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland.

Gap -----Residential Trash / Collection Fee for each pound of trash

assumption strategy -----use negation technique


A) Residents will not reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy.

1. After negation the statement says that residential trash will not reduce .

2. reducing the number of products they buy-----let's understand if initially resident used to buy 100 product per month now they buy 50 product per month but nothing has been given about quantity of the product . the quantity of the 50 product may be more than the quantity of 100 product .

does not fill the gap .


(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.

purchasing power --irrelevant


(C) The collection fee willnot induce residents to dump their trash in the parkland illegally.

fill the gap-----collection fee/ residential trash

(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents.


irrelevant

(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash.

irrelevant


Correct Answer C

Argument analysis :

If the county continues to collect residential trash at current levels, landfills will soon be overflowing and parkland will need to be used in order to create more space. - A prediction based on current situation
Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create; - proposed line of action
this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland. - Conclusion

Assumptions:
Increase in fee will be successful to achieve the desired objective of protecting the parkland by reducing the amount of trash, hence assumes that -
- increase in fees will be enough to convince/force the residents to decrease the amount of trash or
- proper execution of the policy will be there or
- residents will not find any other way of dumping the trash

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

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy. It cannot be an assumption. Even though the option talks about reduction in amount of trash, it does not follow the line of argument that is …impact of fees or how increase in fees has led to this initiative.
(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out. Against the argument
(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally. Correct. Negates
(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents. Priority is good but where is impact of line of action.
(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash. Can be but it is not the point of argument.

Option C

dear experts,
thanks for your patient to my question.

I am a little confused about this statement's conclusion
1/ this conclusion includes two events ?

because I figure out there is a colon btw last 2 sentences, generally, colon means parallelism, so i think there are two events in conclusion , reduce trash and protect remaining parkland

2/ does charge cause reduce and cause protect parkland
or
charge causes reduce, then reduce causes protect parkland

here is a word "therefore" implying a conclusion, charge therefore protect parkland,
reading it some times, i feel charge is not the direct cause which causes protect parkland, but i am not sure.

please help to clarify.

thanks a lot
have a nice day
>_~

If the county continues to collect residential trash at current levels, landfills will soon be overflowing and parkland will need to be used in order to create more space. Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland.

Conclusion: Protecting the country parkland.

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

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy.
By reducing the number of product they buy, they will reduce the trash and so the fees. Which will lead to less trash and might save the parkland.

(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.
We are not concerned with the purchasing power of the clients.

(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.
The question was never about illegal dumping. It clearly said that the county collects it.

(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents.
We ar again not concerned about the parkland beauty.

(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash.
We don't need a solution but an assumption.

Conclusion : Monetary charges on residents will help reducing the trash and hence will save parkland county from excessive trash.

Assumption : Any statement that will help us to conclude that this plan will be a success.

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy. Not that relevant. We can have better answer.
(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out. Out of scope
(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally. Good. if this happens then residents need not to pay more and they can dump the trash in Parkland county dump yards Illegally.
(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents. Out of scope
(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash. Out of scope


(C)
_________________

The argument is that charging residents a fee per pound of trash will protect the parkland as:
P - the parkland will not need to be used by the county for overflow
p - current trash collection amounts are approaching current garbage tip limits
p - residents will be deterred from paying the fee

The assumption here is that the plan will work. The author makes the following quick to find assumptions:
1. residents will be able to reduce their waste
2. residents won't find an alternate method of disposing their trash

A - this is one possible inference from the argument - it is one method of reduction. This, then, wasn't assumed in making the argument as the sequencing follows the argument itself.
B - Purchasing power is irrelevant to the argument
C - this is correct. In arriving at his conclusion, the author makes his argument sound - that is he has considered all alternates and has denied any possibility of the plan deviating from its intended effect. C is one of those effects. Thus C denies the possibility of weakening the author's argument by denying whether the author has considered this.
D - The importance of the parkland is irrelevant to the argument that the fee will have its intended affect.
E - This may be true, but why would the author assume this? This is besides the argument.
_________________

The conclusion is :- "this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland."

Only option A and C are close.
Option A if negated :- Residents will NOT reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy.
May be , they will employ some other methods to reduce the amount of trash i.e may be they will burn the trash . Still they will be able to reduce the trash and since the charging will induce the residents to reduce the trash , we can conclude that "this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland."
The conclusion follows even after negation.
Option A cant be the assumption.

Option C if negated :- The collection fee will induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.
If the collection fee induces residents to dump their trash in the park land illegally then we cant say that "this collection fee will therefore protect the remaining county parkland." Conclusion cant follow after negation.
So negation test proves that option C is the answer.

Please give me KUDO s if you liked my explanation.

GMATNinja VeritasKarishma generis

Conclusion: “this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland”
Prethink: are residents not just going to throw it out at the parklands themselves?

Which of the following is an assumption made in drawing the conclusion above?
(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy.
Related but not required trap/story trap – I mean it’s possible. But this is not required. What if residents just threw it out elsewhere? What they just decided to throw it out at the parklands themselves, resulting in the lack of “protect(ion) [for] the remaining county parkland”?

(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.
Out of scope trap – Purchasing power is irrelevant.

(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.
Spot on with prethink. There’s a pretty big assumption made if they say the charge will protect the parkland. How can you be so sure the residents themselves wont just toss everything there themselves? This closes this one fairly large gap.

(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents.
Out of scope trap – whether it’s an important issue or not is irrelevant. What if it’s an important issue but the residents happen to still toss garbage on the parklands? What if they don’t? You have no idea. There would have to be another assumption for this assumption to substantiate the conclusion.

(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash.
Out of scope trap – it doesn’t matter what other alternatives COULD be used. We’re concerned about the remaining county parkland.

If the county continues to collect residential trash at current levels, landfills will soon be overflowing and parkland will need to be used in order to create more space. Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create; this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland.

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

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy.
-how residents reduce their trash does not matter
-what matters is residents reduce their trash
-so even if they did not reduce the number of products they buy, but reduced their trash in other ways, then the conclusion still holds water
(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.
-out-of-scope
(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.
Correct. This gives us an alternative – one which lead to a scenario in which the remaining county parkland will not be protected
(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents.
-tempting trap choice…the reality is it does not matter whether it is or isn’t an important issue for the county’s residents
-suppose the issue wasn’t important and still they dumped less b/c of the fee > parkland will still be protected
(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash.
-this choice is a strengthener…gives us an additional reason to believe that the parkland will be protected
_________________

Premise: much trash --- > occupation of parkland
Conclusion: Fine ---> less trash --- > No occupation of parkland

In many assumption questions answer ought to prove that something will not happen or somebody will not do. Signifies "negation".

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy.
(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.
(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.
(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents.
(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash.

There are two contenders B and C.
B is direct contradiction of the Argument's conclusion - eliminate it.
Consequently the only answer is C

The correct answer - option C.

Argument Analysis:

1. if (residential or household level trash collection continues at current levels), then (landfills will soon be overflowing, parkland will need to be used as landfill)
2. Conclusion:

Levying a charge on trash put out for collection by households (per pound of trash) -> residents reducing the amount of trash they create -> protection of remaining country parkland

Question:
Find an assumption

Prethinking:
In what scenario will the levying of a charge on trash as discussed above not lead to residents reducing trash creation, and consequently, not lead to protection of the remaining parkland?

1. What if the current consumption of products (which generates trash) is already at the lowest possible level for a household to sustain itself, and it is not practically possible for households to reduce trash further? In such a case, even if a charge is levied, the households will not be able to reduce trash, and so, we cannot say that the remaining parkland will be protected.

Assumption - It is actually possible for households to reduce the trash they create

2. What if, thanks to the collection fee, residents now start directly dumping trash in the parklands, instead of keeping it outside their homes for collection? In such a case, yet again, charging a fee will not have the intended outcome. Households will continue to create the same of higher amounts of trash, and start dumping it illegally in the parklans

Assumption - The fee will not induce residents to dump the trash in the parklands themselves illegally, instead of leaving it outside their homes for collection.

Option Choice Analysis

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy.

In identifying the assumption behind the argument that the fee will lead to lesser trash put out for collection leading to protection of parkland, a valid assumption that helps explain how the fee will lead to lesser trash is what is needed.

Fee -> Lesser trash creation. An assumption behind this is what we need

How is the fee connected to reduction of number of products bought? We do not know if it is the fee which led to this reduction.

Option A: Reduction in number of products bought -> reduction in amount of trash created

We have no idea if Fee -> Reduction in number of products bought

If we cannot connect the fee to the reduction in #products bought by residents, then it cannot be an assumption for this argument.

(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.

Given in the option that households do not reduce the amount of trash. In such a case, impact of collection fee on purchasing power is irrelevant. Our concern is amount of trash, which is not being reduced


(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.

This is correct. In line with our prethought assumption 2.

(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents.

Beauty is irrelevant to the argument.

(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash.

Irrelevant. Negate and check - even if landfills outside cannot be used, the collection fee may still be able to reduce trash creation, and protect domestic parklands. The conclusion will not break when the option is negated.

option C is correct.
_________________

EducationAisle sir,

Is my reasoning below correct? Please share your two cents.

Conclusion:- This charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland.
Basis:- Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create.

Option A:- This is the incorrect answer choice because although the residents are reducing the amount of trash that they are putting out for collection but they are not doing so because of the fee that is being charged. They are doing so by reducing the number of products they buy. So although this is tempting but this is incorrect because we don't know what is the impact of levying the fee on these households.

Option B:- We are not concerned with the purchasing power of residents. Irrlevant to our argument.

Option C:- This is the correct answer choice because if the charge would not lead to illegal dumping by residents then charge will therefore protect the remaining county parklands. When we negatre this option statement we get "Collection fee will induce their residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally". then this weakens the conclusion. The remaining parklands would not be protected. Hence, this is the correct answer choice.

Option D:- Irrelevant to our argument. No mention and no relation of beauty.

Option E:- Our conclusion still stands. If landfills outside the county's borders could be used for dumping, we know that landfills will soon be overflowing. Hence, this is the incorrect answer choice.

The conclusion is that charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create.

Now, how exactly will the residents reduce the amount of trash they create (by reducing the number of products they buy, by indulging in more recycling, or by any other means) is out of scope. Hence, A is not really relevant.
_________________

If the county continues to collect residential trash at current levels, landfills will soon be overflowing, and parkland will need to be used in order to create more space.
The condition: The county continues to collect residential trash at the current rate
The consequence: Landfills will soon be overflowing, and parkland will need to be used to create space for the extra trash.

Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will induce residents to reduce the amount of trash they create;
This statement is a prediction; it says X will lead to Y.

X: charging each household a fee per pound of trash it gives for collection

Y: Residents will be encouraged to reduce the amount of trash they create

(As I read this statement, I can already observe a difference between “the trash it gives for collection” and “the trash they create.” I can see that people may find a way to save the amount they pay by reducing the amount of trash they give to collection but keep producing the same amount of trash. Maybe, they’ll dispose of the remaining trash on their own)

this charge will therefore protect the remaining county parkland.
The author concludes that this charge will protect the remaining county parkland.

The Gist:

Charging each household a fee for each pound of trash it puts out for collection will reduce the amount of trash the residents generate and thus will protect the remaining county parkland.

The Gaps

1. As I shared in the passage analysis, the residents may find a way to dispose of their trash in some way other than giving it for collection and may continue to generate the same amount of trash. In such a case, our plan will not reduce the amount of trash the residents generate.
2. It could also be the case that the households are completely comfortable with paying the fee. As a result, they don’t reduce the amount of trash that they generate.

(A) Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy

Incorrect. -Let me first discuss a variation of this option:

A’: Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection

Is A’ an assumption?

I don’t think so. Let me explain.

The argument says that X (charging each household for the trash it generates) will lead to Y (reduction in the amount of residential trash). Thus, X will help.

A’ says that Y will happen.

Think about it. I say, “X will lead to Y. Thus, X will help.”

Am I assuming that Y will happen? (“Y will happen” means there are no conditions attached to the occurrence of Y. This means that Y will happen, irrespective of X.)

No.

Am I assuming that X will make Y happen?

I don’t think so. I’m directly stating, “X will lead to Y.” How can a rephrasing of my statement be an assumption? It’s not.

From the above discussion, we understand that “Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection” is not an assumption of the above argument.

Now, let’s look at the original option A:

Residents will reduce the amount of trash they put out for collection by reducing the number of products they buy.

The option says that the residents will reduce the amount of trash in a specific way. Which way? By reducing the number of products they buy.

Does it matter to us how they reduce the amount of trash?

Not at all.

Whether they reduce the number of products or shift to using only those products that produce less trash is none of our concern.

Thus, option A is incorrect.

(B) The collection fee will not significantly affect the purchasing power of most residents, even if their households do not reduce the amount of trash they put out.

Incorrect. - This option weakens the argument; the option indicates that the collection fee may fail to reduce the amount of trash the residents put out for collection.

Since this option weakens the argument, it cannot be an assumption.

(C) The collection fee will not induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.

Correct. - This option strengthens the argument by saying that the collection fee will not lead to dumping of trash in the parklands.

On negation, the option says:

The collection fee will induce residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally.

In this case, the argument falls flat since if the collection fee induces residents to dump their trash in the parklands illegally, charging the collection fee will not save the parklands.

Since the argument breaks down on negating the option, option C is an assumption.

(D) The beauty of county parkland is an important issue for most of the county’s residents.

Incorrect. -This option has no impact on the argument. Whether the beauty of the parkland is an important issue or not for the residents doesn’t help us evaluate whether charging the collection fee will reduce the amount of trash residents generate or not.

(E) Landfills outside the county’s borders could be used as dumping sites for the county’s trash.

Incorrect. -This option has NO IMPACT on the argument. Our concern is whether charging households a fee for the amount of trash they generate will reduce the amount of trash they generate and thus will help the parklands.

The fact that we can use landfills outside the county’s borders doesn’t impact the argument. (If the argument had been that we NEED TO reduce the amount of trash to save the parklands in the county, then this option would have weakened. Why? Because this option indicates that we don’t need to reduce the amount of trash to save the county’s parklands. We can simply use outside landfills. However, the current argument is not about what NEEDS to be done but about whether doing X will lead to Y.)
_________________

The argument at the heart of it states that the current levels of waste collected is at a level wherein the current landfill would not be able to sustain it. To reduce the trash at source, a fee is to be introduced that would induce the people of county to throw out lesser amount of trash. In essence, the fee would save the remaining parkland from being converted into a landfill.

A) even if the residents buy lesser products and reduce the amount of trash, it is not the fee that has caused this. The conclusion clearly states that the fee will have this effect. Thus the conclusion can stand with or without option A being assumed.
B) the effect o the fee on purchasing power is not relevant here but the amount of trash collected and how it can be impacted from the fee.
C) this is the correct assumption because negating this option would mean that the fee would actually cause people to illegally dump and thus, still use parkland as a landfill. Without this assumption the conclusion would breakdown.
D) beauty aspect is not at all related to conclusion in any way
E) this option doesn’t have any impact on the conclusion, we are only worried about the trash affecting parkland and not the whole county’s borders.

Posted from my mobile device