vibhav
Most people who betray their country through some form of espionage are driven by irrational desires to feel powerful or important, to seek revenge, or even to take risks. If these people were thinking rationally, they would not be involved in such self-destructive behavior.
The argument above rests on which of the following assumptions?
A. Self-destruction is the most frequent result of espionage.
B. The desire to feel powerful is always irrational.
C. Those involved in espionage do not have rational reasons for their behavior.
D. Espionage is rarely a successful way to gain revenge.
E. Risk-taking is a less frequent motivation for espionage than the desire to feel important.
If you map out the argument, you can see it fits the "A vs Not A" Framework from gmatpill.
Irrational Desires -> espionage
Rational ->no such self-destructive behavior.
One of the assumptions here is a reference/link between "espionage" and "self-destructive behavior". In particular, espionage is described as a self-destructive behavior.
However, the question is not just asking for ANY assumption. It's asking an assumption on which the argument depends. In other words, which assumption if NOT TRUE, would make the argument fall apart.
Based on the "A vs Not A" framework, you can see that the argument "depends"/"relies" on people being irrational when committing espionage. Why? Because the opposite (being rational) leads to the opposite conclusion. "No such self-destructive behavior" would result.
If we can establish (thru the assumption negation technique) that the opposite state of the assumption leads to the opposite state of the argument, then that original assumption is an assumption on which the argument depends. This is what (C) does.