So by basically considering the negation of option B, we are creating an additional situation along with the evidence provided right? And then using logic, we say is the evidence holding true (i.e. supporting the argument) or not now? Because of the additional situation, the evidence can no longer support the statement, and the argument becomes opposite.
imhimanshu
In North America there has been an explosion of public interest in, and enjoyment of,opera over the last three decades. The evidence of this explosion is that of the 70 or so professional opera companies currently active in North America,45 were founded over the course of the last 30 years.
The reasoning above assumes which one of the following?
a) All of the 70 professional opera companies are commercially viable options.
b) There were fewer than 45 professional opera companies that had been active 30 years ago and that ceased operations during the last 30 years.
c) There has not been a corresponding increase in the number of professional companies devoted to other performing arts.
d) The size of the average audience at performances by professional opera companies has increased over the past three decades.
e) The 45 most recently founded companies were all established as a result of enthusiasm on the part of a potential audience.
Can someone provide a reasoning over choice E
You have to focus on the conclusion.
Conclusion: Over the last 30 years, there has been an explosion of interest in Opera.
What does that mean? It means that the interest has increased manifold in the last 30 yrs (focus on the word 'increased')
How does the author support his argument? By saying that out of the current 70 opera companies, 45 were founded in the last 30 yrs i.e. much more than half were found in the last 30 yrs.
What is the assumption? 50 opera companies did not shut shop in the last 30 yrs i.e. more than 45 companies did not close down. You need your assumption to be true for the conclusion to be true. If 50 companies had shut down in the past 30 yrs, we can't say that opera is gaining a following.
Think about it: You say, "Popularity of pizza is increasing every day. Every week, one new pizza place opens up in my neighborhood."
What is your assumption? That 2 pizza places do not shut down everyday in your neighborhood. It that were the case, then we cannot say that pizza is becoming more popular.
You don't need option (E) to be true for the conclusion to be true. Say, even if all 45 were not established as a result of enthusiasm (say, only 40 were established as a result of enthusiasm), even then it is possible that interest in opera has increased. You don't need (E) to be true to prove the conclusion. Hence it is not an assumption.