Most people who run for an elected office do so because they

The questions asks for the assumption on which this argument is based. Once this assumption is negated or fails, the argument fails. It is solely on the basis of this assumption that the argument is valid.

Now let us consider statement C
It says that trust is essential for a successful career as a public official. Now, when negated the meaning becomes that trust is not very essential to be a public officer. An untrustworthy person could also serve as a public official. If so, any person, even if discloses private information, should work as a public officer irrespective of whether he/she is trusted by the members of the government. However, the argument says that this cannot happen and thus the sentence rests upon this assumption.

Let us now consider argument D. Your explanation of D does make sense. However, not the highlighted word below

Members of the government frequently do not trust authors of books.

This means that members of parliament frequently do not trust authors of books but sometimes they do. Thinking in that order, they might eliminate most publishers of book but they might let some stay and continue serving as a public officer. Since, D does give us scope where the argument is weak, this cannot be the assumption.

Remember to always pay attention to any words that generalize like always,sometime etc. They most probably will have a catch. When you see such words in any option, pay extra attention to those options.

Hope this helps!

Nowhere does it mention "success" in the scope of a career. I would agree with C 100% if it just stated "trust is essential for a political career," but "successful career" seems out of scope. Can someone please point out where I am wrong?

If a public official publishes a book revealing information, he or she will never again be trusted by other members of the government.

Conclusion: If a person publishes a book revealing information, that person’s political career has inarguably come to an end.

Look at the structure.

If someone does A, B happens.

So, if someone does A, C happens.

The conclusion talks about public office coming to an end while the premises never mention it.

What is an assumption here? That if B happens, C happens. If people lose trust, political career comes to an end. So trust is necessary for political career. Without it, you will lose political career.

Hence (C) is correct.
It is not given to you in premises.

As for the question you mention, I have given my views on it on its own thread.
https://gmatclub.com/forum/scientists-h ... l#p2680008

IMHO, C is already mentioned in the passage in green color.However,we have to assume such that it links conclusion and premise,which I think D does properly.
D links the trust and the author of the books .

Nevertheless,OA is different .


Plz Advice

Thanks

But just for clarity sake if some option would have said that:

--Others members of govt. don't trust the authors of the books who are running for elections and intend to make profits .

Plz Advice !!!

This would have made it more difficult and probably wrong.

If you consider this as option D, then negating this statement would lead you to believe that members of parliament trust authors who are running for elections. The argument states that the members will ask such authors to step down as they wouldn't trust them. Both oppose each other and hence option D might have been the assumption.

Of course then this would not be a GMAT like question as it has two possible answers.

Hope that helps!

Please provide OA.

I think the answer is E.

Public officials will seek to profit from their access to privileged information if given the opportunity.

The public officials seek profit through accessing classified information; subsequently, loose the trust among their office colleagues.

OA is C.
It is provided in the spoiler link right after the answer choices~

egmat VeritasKarishma

Can you help me with this? I neglected C because it is already stated.

Like there is a question

Scientists have several rival theories on the causes of fibromyalgia, a disorder that causes body-wide chronic pain and fatigue. One leading theory holds that conditions such as depression, anxiety, drug use and serotonin deficiency can aggravate or even cause fibromyalgia by interfering with "stage 4," or "deep sleep." This theory is concerned with the function of neuropeptide substance P, which is released in the spinal cord in response to pain and causes nerve endings around the initiating nerves to also become more sensitive to pain. Normally, this mechanism is "reset" during deep sleep. If pain becomes body-wide, however, and the mechanism can not be reset, this process may run out of control.

The theory above on the cause of fibromyalgia rests on which of the following assumptions?

a. The body has a limited amount of control over neuropeptide substance P.
b. Fibromyalgia is a completely preventable disorder, if only other conditions are recognized and treated before it can develop.
c. Deep sleep is necessary to the healthy functioning of the nervous system.
d. The functions of neuropeptides released by the spinal cord must be better understood before a cure for fibromyalgia can be found.
e. Because the causes of fibromyalgia are linked to depression, the disorder should be treated by mental health professionals.

In this I choose C but some people say because it is already stated it cannot be assumed.

But how it cannot be assumed, for example if Deep Sleep is not necessary to the healthy functioning of the nervous system. then even if there is interference in deep sleep still it can result in healthy nervous system

You really wonder how official questions that are flawed pass review. I suppose the test-writers aren't perfect, but there is an obvious flaw here. The argument assumes that trust is required for a career as a public official. It does not assume anything concerning a 'successful' career, which is different than a career as career.