Last visit was: 18 Nov 2025, 17:22 It is currently 18 Nov 2025, 17:22
Close
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.

Customized
for You

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History

Track
Your Progress

every week, we’ll send you an estimated GMAT score based on your performance

Practice
Pays

we will pick new questions that match your level based on your Timer History
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
Close
Request Expert Reply
Confirm Cancel
User avatar
macjas
Joined: 09 May 2012
Last visit: 30 Jul 2015
Posts: 308
Own Kudos:
9,987
 [59]
Given Kudos: 100
Affiliations: UWC
Location: Canada
GMAT 1: 620 Q42 V33
GMAT 2: 680 Q44 V38
GPA: 3.43
WE:Engineering (Media/Entertainment)
Products:
GMAT 2: 680 Q44 V38
Posts: 308
Kudos: 9,987
 [59]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
55
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Most Helpful Reply
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,982
 [9]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,982
 [9]
8
Kudos
Add Kudos
1
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
General Discussion
User avatar
Apt0810
Joined: 15 Jul 2018
Last visit: 24 Oct 2020
Posts: 327
Own Kudos:
622
 [2]
Given Kudos: 94
Posts: 327
Kudos: 622
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
User avatar
mimishyu
Joined: 16 Aug 2019
Last visit: 03 Oct 2025
Posts: 136
Own Kudos:
101
 [2]
Given Kudos: 51
Location: Taiwan
GPA: 3.7
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
macjas
Project IR Butler 2019-20 - Get one IR Question Everyday
Question # 08, Date : 08-Oct-2019
This post is a part of Project IR Butler 2019-20. Click here for Details

Journalist: Workers at Facsum Inc. have threatened to strike if management does not meet their demands for an immediate 5% pay raise and a paid lunch break. Further, workers are insisting that the company rehire 12 employees who were laid off for complaining about substandard wages and working conditions. It is well-known that Facsum reported that negative profits in 3 of its previous 4 quarterly earnings reports. We believe a strike is inevitable.

Identify an assumption required by the journalist’s argument and a fact that, if true, would most strongly support the required assumption. Make only two selections, one in each column.
Attachment:
Capture.JPG


Assumption: Facsum likely does not have sufficient cash flow or cash reserves to support increased expenses.
Supporting Fact: The majority of the losses were due to a significant decline in profit margins.


see the structure of the question stem:

workers threaten to strike if the demand for pay wage raise and paid lunch break cannot reach
……but Fascum’s report negative profit…..thus strike inevitable



some additional informations to know:
(1)In an argument, an assumption is a premise that is not explicitly(directly)stated. These unstated premises are very important since “the validity of an argument is determined by the validity of its assumptions”. Assumptions are the missing links of arguments.

(2)an assumption is an unexamined belief: what we think without realizing we think it. Our inferences(also called conclusions)are often based on assumptions that we haven’t thought about critically. A critical thinker, however, is attentive to these assumptions because they are sometimes incorrect or misguided.




the argument of Journalist:
the strike, which appeal for pay-rise and paid lunch break, to the management of Fascum must be inevitable since the tricky problem of negative profit earnings remain



the strike, which appeal for pay-rise and paid lunch break, must be inevitable-->>this is the conclusion( to the argument)

must be->>this is the key point to which the argument be valid or not

the tricky problem of negative profit earnings remain->>this is a phenomenon used for explain the assumption, its
focus revolves around the issue to profit-money, and if this assumption valid, then the conclusion as well as the whole argument could be valid too
and we browse through sentence (1)-(6), only (4)&(6) talks about money, here we want to find assumption, in (4)—were due to—cannot be the wording show up in assumption, thus only (6) somewhat more corresponsive to “the tricky problem of negative profit earnings remain”



or we could find assumption, which the argument based upon, by using “elimination method”

sentence (1): this statement oppose to Journalist’s argument, the worker won’t compromise

sentence(2):there’s nowhere in the passage that we saw the word “leader” ever show up

sentence(3):the statement in question stem doesn’t mention “negotiate” very specifically, it just says “rehire 12 employees….” which we can infer from the Journalist’s tone that he/she is somehow willing to negotiate

sentence(5):here we’re not concerned about the reason why 12 employees layoff, the question stem only says that the company rehire 12 employees who were laid off…

sentence (6):workers at Fascum threaten to strike if management cannot meet their demand--but why cannot meet their demand?-here we had to pick a choice which could best explain this doubt, and though (4) mention about profit losses, its wording “were due to”(it can only be a fact) cannot appear in the assumption kind of sentence, thus only (6) fits best
User avatar
Cellchat
Joined: 16 Jan 2020
Last visit: 24 Nov 2020
Posts: 33
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 30
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V28
GMAT 1: 640 Q48 V28
Posts: 33
Kudos: 62
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Why is the supporting fact not 6?

Is it because it is not a fact as it states 'likely'?
avatar
Mkerolos
Joined: 01 Oct 2020
Last visit: 10 Dec 2020
Posts: 2
Given Kudos: 7
Posts: 2
Kudos: 0
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
How can I tell if an IRnquestion is MSR/GI/TPA/TA? Would this be table analysis?
User avatar
Sajjad1994
User avatar
GRE Forum Moderator
Joined: 02 Nov 2016
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 17,289
Own Kudos:
49,290
 [1]
Given Kudos: 6,179
GPA: 3.62
Products:
Posts: 17,289
Kudos: 49,290
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Mkerolos
How can I tell if an IRnquestion is MSR/GI/TPA/TA? Would this be table analysis?

Practice a bunch of IR questions and you will find the difference between the questions until then you can see the tags given with each question. This is a two part analysis question.

See the screen shot.
Attachment:
123.jpg
123.jpg [ 421.57 KiB | Viewed 12453 times ]

Thank you
User avatar
kntombat
User avatar
Retired Moderator
Joined: 28 Feb 2020
Last visit: 19 Jan 2023
Posts: 900
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 839
Location: India
WE:Other (Other)
Posts: 900
Kudos: 519
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
Assumption is Statement 6: Facsum likely does not have sufficient cash flow or cash reserves to support increased expenses, if this is negated then the argument falls apart.

Supporting statement for this Assumption is=: The majority of the losses were due to a significant decline in profit margins. This is the only option that can be considered as a supporting statement became the reason for the decline in profit margins is the increase in expenses as stated by our the assumption.
User avatar
GMATist1
Joined: 23 Jul 2021
Last visit: 03 Dec 2023
Posts: 34
Own Kudos:
36
 [3]
Given Kudos: 138
Location: India
Concentration: Entrepreneurship, Strategy
Schools: Rotman '25
WE:Other (Computer Software)
Schools: Rotman '25
Posts: 34
Kudos: 36
 [3]
3
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mimishyu
Why can't the assumption be:
Fascum is unwilling to negotiate with the workers.

and the supporting fact be:
Facsum likely does not have sufficient cash flow or cash reserves to support increased expenses.
User avatar
BLTN
Joined: 25 Aug 2020
Last visit: 19 Dec 2022
Posts: 242
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 216
Posts: 242
Kudos: 255
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
VeritasKarishma
Dear Karishma,
could you shed some light, why the following combination is not valid?

Conclusion : We believe a strike is inevitable.
Why ?
Assumption: Fascum is unwilling to negotiate with the workers.
Why?
Supporting fact: Facsum likely does not have sufficient cash flow or cash reserves to support increased expenses.

Thank you in advance.
User avatar
mpobisetty
Joined: 06 Dec 2021
Last visit: 27 Oct 2025
Posts: 65
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 5
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V36
GMAT 1: 690 Q49 V36
Posts: 65
Kudos: 30
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATist1

Why can't the assumption be:
Fascum is unwilling to negotiate with the workers.
I also have the same question, because if we negate this assumption (Fascum is willing to negotiate with the workers), then the conclusion (that a strike is inevitable) is no longer valid.

isn't this how assumptions are supposed to be tackled?

GMATGuruNY GMATNinja please help.
User avatar
GMATGuruNY
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,344
Own Kudos:
3,795
 [2]
Given Kudos: 9
Schools:Dartmouth College
Expert
Expert reply
Posts: 1,344
Kudos: 3,795
 [2]
2
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
mpobisetty
GMATist1

Why can't the assumption be:
Fascum is unwilling to negotiate with the workers.
I also have the same question, because if we negate this assumption (Fascum is willing to negotiate with the workers), then the conclusion (that a strike is inevitable) is no longer valid.

isn't this how assumptions are supposed to be tackled?

As you have correctly noted, the negation of the correct answer must invalidate the conclusion.

PREMISE:
If management does not meet their demands, workers have threatened to strike.
CONCLUSION:
A strike is inevitable.

The premise indicates the following:
To avoid a strike, Facsum must meet the workers' demands.

C, negated:
Facsum is willing to negotiate with the workers.
Here, the usage of negotiate suggests that Facsum might meet some but not all of the workers' demands, potentially STRENGTHENING the conclusion that a strike is inevitable.
Since the negation of the correct answer must clearly WEAKEN the conclusion, eliminate C.

F, negated:
Facsum likely has sufficient cash flow to support increased expenses.
This negation suggests that Facsum can afford to meet the workers' demands, WEAKENING the conclusion that a strike is inevitable.
Since the negation of F weakens the conclusion, F is a valid assumption.
User avatar
sayan640
Joined: 29 Oct 2015
Last visit: 10 Nov 2025
Posts: 1,180
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 783
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28
Products:
GMAT 1: 570 Q42 V28
Posts: 1,180
Kudos: 813
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB , I also have similar questions. Can you please help ? chetan2u

Why can't the assumption be:
Fascum is unwilling to negotiate with the workers.

and the supporting fact be:
Facsum likely does not have sufficient cash flow or cash reserves to support increased expenses.
GMATist1
mimishyu
Why can't the assumption be:
Fascum is unwilling to negotiate with the workers.

and the supporting fact be:
Facsum likely does not have sufficient cash flow or cash reserves to support increased expenses.
­
User avatar
Nidhibatra
Joined: 23 Jun 2022
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 30
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 268
Posts: 30
Kudos: 4
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
can someone please shed light on why supporting fact is "decline in profit margin", why couldn't it be "unwillingness"?
User avatar
PReciSioN
Joined: 17 Dec 2023
Last visit: 14 Apr 2025
Posts: 95
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 47
Location: India
GMAT Focus 1: 795 Q90 V90 DI88
GMAT Focus 1: 795 Q90 V90 DI88
Posts: 95
Kudos: 77
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
GMATNinja KarishmaB, Is F really required to make this argument? It could be very well be that Fascum has the cash reserves, but is still unwilling to negotiate with the workers given the recent losses it has made.

More importantly, how does D support this assumption even in the slightest? Whether the losses are due to a low profit margin or any other reason is irrelevant. We already know that the losses were there. The reason for the losses doesn't seem to support F at all.­
User avatar
KarishmaB
Joined: 16 Oct 2010
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 16,265
Own Kudos:
76,982
 [1]
Given Kudos: 482
Location: Pune, India
Expert
Expert reply
Active GMAT Club Expert! Tag them with @ followed by their username for a faster response.
Posts: 16,265
Kudos: 76,982
 [1]
1
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
PReciSioN
GMATNinja KarishmaB, Is F really required to make this argument? It could be very well be that Fascum has the cash reserves, but is still unwilling to negotiate with the workers given the recent losses it has made.

More importantly, how does D support this assumption even in the slightest? Whether the losses are due to a low profit margin or any other reason is irrelevant. We already know that the losses were there. The reason for the losses doesn't seem to support F at all.­
­We need an assumption required by the journalist in his argument. What is he assuming? Is he assuming that Facsum is unwilling to negotiate with the workers? Facsum's willingness is not even a part of his argument. He is only talking about the financial angle so any assumptions he made were towards the financial angle.
Only (F) and (D) work as a pair.

(F) Facsum likely does not have sufficient cash flow or cash reserves to support increased expenses.

(D) The majority of the losses were due to a significant decline in profit margins.

A decline in profit margin is an indicator of money troubles. For example, if the company wrote off some big receivables, then the company profit could dip in some quarters even if it has cashflows overall. A significant decline in profit margins indicates bigger trouble.
User avatar
Gemmie
Joined: 19 Dec 2021
Last visit: 18 Nov 2025
Posts: 491
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 76
Location: Viet Nam
Concentration: Technology, Economics
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q87 V84 DI83
GPA: 3.55
GMAT Focus 1: 695 Q87 V84 DI83
Posts: 491
Kudos: 426
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
­Assumption: "Facsum likely does not have sufficient cash flow or cash reserves to support increased expenses."

This assumption suggests that Facsum's financial situation is so strained that the company cannot afford to meet the workers' demands (e.g., a 5% pay raise and rehiring laid-off employees). If this is true, it makes the strike more likely because the company would be unable to satisfy the workers' demands, leading to a deadlock.


Supporting Fact: "The majority of the losses were due to a significant decline in profit margins."

If most of Facsum's recent financial losses are due to a significant decline in profit margins, it suggests that the company is struggling financially. Declining profit margins typically mean that a company is earning less money on its sales, which can lead to cash flow problems. If Facsum's profit margins are shrinking, it's likely that the company doesn’t have enough cash reserves or ongoing cash flow to handle additional expenses like higher wages or rehiring laid-off workers.
User avatar
boybread5
Joined: 29 Dec 2016
Last visit: 17 Nov 2025
Posts: 24
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 19
Location: United States (CA)
GMAT Focus 1: 625 Q86 V80 DI77
GMAT Focus 2: 665 Q81 V89 DI79
GMAT Focus 3: 635 Q83 V78 DI83
GMAT Focus 4: 755 Q88 V90 DI85
GPA: 3.92
Products:
GMAT Focus 4: 755 Q88 V90 DI85
Posts: 24
Kudos: 19
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
KarishmaB, why can't the assumption and supporting fact be flipped? That's what I'm still scratching my head on.
User avatar
cheshire
User avatar
DI Forum Moderator
Joined: 26 Jun 2025
Last visit: 18 Sep 2025
Posts: 271
Own Kudos:
Given Kudos: 34
Posts: 271
Kudos: 256
Kudos
Add Kudos
Bookmarks
Bookmark this Post
You have to think of it in a cause and effect sort of way.

Because they had lower profit margins -> they do not have sufficient cash flow.
Not having sufficient cash flow does not lead to lower profit margins, however.

The statement: "Facsum likely does not have sufficient cash flow or cash reserves to support increased expenses" is inherently not a fact just in it's unsure nature, and rather something that would require supporting evidence.

boybread5
KarishmaB, why can't the assumption and supporting fact be flipped? That's what I'm still scratching my head on.
Moderators:
Math Expert
105355 posts
496 posts