Assumptions are a kind of strengtheners.

Premises that strengthen the conclusion provide data that makes the conclusion more possible.
Assumptions are premises that strengthen the conclusion and in fact are necessary to make the conclusion hold.

So every assumption will strengthen the conclusion but every strengthener is not an assumption.
_________________

Ans: "A"

Hi

Option B talks about profits for corporations that have failed to automate. However, clearly the argument mentions only those corporations wherein automation is under way. Also, the argument never mentions profit as an aspect and is just concerned with people losing their jobs to automation.

Option A clearly strengthens the argument by eliminating the possibility that the workers who are losing jobs to automation might find new jobs without any problems. If it were the case, then the argument might be weakened.

Hope this helps.

Cheers!

Author's Argument: Companies eventually need to pay more tax.
Why: If unemployment increases, govt will increase taxes to pay off unemployement.

Hence anything that points to increase in unemployment increase will be a right answer.

Why not B - There is no mention of profit in the argument. Hence we cannot relate profit to taxes and also, the author is only concerned about the companies that are moving to automation and nothing about the companies that are not doing so. Option B is irrelevant.

The argument claims that the increase of layoffs will directly result in increased taxes for government assistance. The assumption is that those being laid off will not be able to find another job; if they could find another job, the number of unemployment claims would decrease. The argument is only focused on whether firms that are automating will pay more taxes for government assistance. The incorrect answers are trying to distract you.

A. Many workers who have already lost their jobs to automation have been unable to find new jobs. This is correct. If they could find another job, unemployment claims would decrease.
B. Many corporations that have failed to automate have seen their profits decline. profits are not relevant
C. Taxes and unemployment insurance are paid also by corporations that are not automating. firms that don't automate are not relevant
D. Most of the new jobs created by automation pay less than the jobs eliminated by automation did. difference in pay is not relevant
E. The initial investment in machinery for automation is often greater than the short-term savings in labor costs. return on investment is not relevant; we just want to know if these firms will pay more taxes

I have a question. Is option A an assumption also? Because going by "negation technique" for assumptions, if option A is negated, in other words, if many workers who have lost their jobs to automation are able to find new jobs, then the conclusion of the argument no longer is valid.

Hi All,

Sorry in advance if my question seems stupid :

While reading, I had the impression that there were no conclusion, only a bunch of statements.
Since the only affirmative sentence was the first, I thought that the conclusion was the following : Replacement of workers ==> Savings
I thought that the second part However it is possible that actually it costs money was only an hypothesis, a possibility.

Then my question is the following : How can you consider a probabability, without any affirmation (introduced by however), a conclusion ?

Thanks in advance for your kind help,

Focus on whats highlighted:
However,many workers who lose their jobs to automation will need government assistance to survive, and the same corporations that are laying people off will eventually pay for that assistance through increased taxes and unemployment insurance payments.

Here the author is confirming that companies will eventually have to pay for unemployment. But what if the employees who lost their jobs to automation find jobs in another company? Then the company wont have to pay for unemployment.
But if the employees who lost their jobs to automation are unsuccessful in finding a job? Then these companies will have to pay for them through increased taxes and insurance.

Hope this makes sense.
_________________

Hello experts VeritasKarishma, GMATNinjaTwo, @sayantanc2k,@AndrewN

I could not find the conclusion confidently and though that "many workers who lose their jobs to automation will need government assistance to survive" is conclusion and last sentence seems like supporting it. Obviously i got it wrong. Can you please explain how to find the conclusion when statements in passage are very neutral or seem like facts.

Thanks in advance.

Conclusion is the main idea. If you were to summarise what is said in one line, how would you do it? What does the author want to tell you?
That automation will not lead to companies saving money eventually. That is the whole crux of the argument.

The conclusion statement may not even be mentioned clearly in the argument. The author could go on and on giving data and supporting explanations but if she is asked, "So what are you trying to say?" then the one sentence that the author will say next will be your conclusion.
_________________

GMATNinja, could you please clarify why E is not correct answer choice?

GMATNinja ScottTargetTestPrep TestPrepUnlimited
this question is terribly written in my opinion. Interpretation of the authors main conclusion from my perspective, no matter how many times I read it, is that these companies will eventually pay these fired workers assistance. The question, in turn, is asking what strengthens the argument? i.e. show me more support that these companies are going to be paying the cost for these workers and the money will be going into their pockets. If either of you you gave some perspective it'd make my day! This questions has been annoying me.

You're right that the conclusion is found in the last clause of the passage: "the same corporations that are laying people off will eventually pay for that assistance through increased taxes and unemployment insurance payments."

We're then asked to strengthen this argument, but it's important to remember WHY the author arrived at the conclusion in the first place. He/she believes that workers that lose their jobs (to automation) will need government assistance to survive.

With that in mind, here's (A):


At first glance, it may not seem like this strengthens the conclusion that corporations will eventually have to pay for assistance. But keep in mind that the logic of the argument is that workers will need government assistance to survive. Do we know that's necessarily true? Often, people that lose their jobs simply find another job, and they don't end up needing government assistance to survive. So, why is it the case here that government assistance will be needed?

(A) suggests that there's already a pattern at work. Workers that lose their jobs (because of automation) are not able to find new jobs. If that's true, then we have more reason to believe that these unemployed workers will need government assistance. And consequently, we have more reason to believe that the same corporations will end up paying "for that assistance through increased taxes and unemployment insurance payments."

So, (A) is the best answer choice.

I hope that helps!
_________________

Hello GMATNinja

Even though option D in this question seems out of Scope, can't we argue that since the corporations know that they will have to pay for the taxes to the government, they have purposely kept the income of the new employees low so that the money they saved could be paid as taxes and that would strengthen the argument, as they are paying the money.

Posted from my mobile device