The government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits, but

Good question. The conclusion states that the depositor bears the cost of the insurance. This would hold true if bank remains fair to the depositors. Option C eliminates one such possibility.

The government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits, but requires the banks to pay the premiums for the insurance. Since it is depositors who primarily benefit from the security this insurance provides, the government should take steps to ensure that depositors who want this security bear the cost of it and thus should make depositors pay the premiums for insuring their own accounts.

Which of the following is assumed by the argument?

(A) Banks are not insured by the government against default on the loans the banks make.

(B) Private insurance companies do not have the resources to provide banks or individual with deposit insurance.

(C) Banks do not always cover the cost of the deposit-insurance premiums by paying depositors lower interest rates on insured deposits than the banks would on uninsured deposits.

(D) The government limits the insurance protection it provides by insuring accounts up to a certain legally defined amount only.

(E) The government does not allow banks to offer some kinds of accounts in which deposits are not insured.

It is an assumption question.

If we boil it down we get government should take premiums from the ultimate beneficiaries of the insurance. Since depositors are the beneficiaries, they should be charged, not the banks.

Missing information: The author assumes that the bank is taking the money indirectly from it's customers. If it is then the conclusion will no longer be valid. Hence c is the answer.

stuck with C and D.
C is better than D b/c C directly links with the argument.
D is a strengthener, and D talks about another plan, so D moves the scope.

Hey abhimahna,

I am confused between options C and D.
Could you please explain why option C is correct?

Hi PP777,

Conclusion - government should take steps to ensure that depositors who want this security bear the cost of it and thus should make depositors pay the premiums for insuring their own accounts.
Pre-thinking - The argument assumes that as of now customers are not paying the insurance premium by some other means.

(C) Banks do not always cover the cost of the deposit-insurance premiums by paying depositors lower interest rates on insured deposits than the banks would on uninsured deposits.
- On negating this , the argument falls apart - Banks always cover the cost of deposit-insurance premiums by paying depositors lower interest rates on insured deposits than the banks would on uninsured deposits.

(D) The government limits the insurance protection it provides by insuring accounts up to a certain legally defined amount only. -- Incorrect - even if there is a limit of say 10,000 $ Up to which deposit is insured, does it affect that depositors need to pay for premium?

Hope this helps!!

Premise :- Govt. provides insurance for individuals' bank deposit but banks should pay premiums for the insurance. Depositors are directly beneficial from the security that insurance provides

Conclusion - depositors must pay the premiums for insuring their own accounts And Govt should take some steps in this direction.

Assumption :- Anything that hints towards - depositor not paying the fee directly or indirectly will be valid assumption.

(A) Banks are not insured by the government against default on the loans the banks make. - Out of scope banks insured against default loans is not related to the discussion.

(B) Private insurance companies do not have the resources to provide banks or individual with deposit insurance. - Resources availability of Private Companies is not in the scope of arguments

(C) Banks do not always cover the cost of the deposit-insurance premiums by paying depositors lower interest rates on insured deposits than the banks would on uninsured deposits.
This choice correctly states the assumption. On reading carefully, we can understand that depositor need to pay the premium because banks do not always cover the cost of deposit - insurance by paying lower interest rates on insured deposits
Negating the statement breaks the conclusion. Hence it is right choice.

(D) The government limits the insurance protection it provides by insuring accounts up to a certain legally defined amount only. - Limiting the insurance protection and insuring defined amount again breaks the conclusion

(E) The government does not allow banks to offer some kinds of accounts in which deposits are not insured. -- This is going against the conclusion

Answer - C

I do not get why E is wrong. If customer is not given a choice and forced to get only secured deposits why should he get charged for insurance...not clear to me.

assumption is when that banks are not charging anything from customer as its paying their premium.
only c is inline.

The government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits, but requires the banks to pay the premiums for the insurance. Since it is depositors who primarily benefit from the security this insurance provides, the government should take steps to ensure that depositors who want this security bear the cost of it and thus should make depositors pay the premiums for insuring their own accounts.

Which of the following is assumed by the argument?

(A) Banks are not insured by the government against default on the loans the banks make.
Loans, not deposits

(B) Private insurance companies do not have the resources to provide banks or individual with deposit insurance.
Irrelevant

(C) Banks do not always cover the cost of the deposit-insurance premiums by paying depositors lower interest rates on insured deposits than the banks would on uninsured deposits.
Good. If banks always cover the cost of the deposit-insurance premiums by paying depositors lower interest rates on insured deposits, than there will be no need to demand payments of these premiums from final users (depositors). The banks pay everything. So the conclusion folds. Thus it is our assumption

(D) The government limits the insurance protection it provides by insuring accounts up to a certain legally defined amount only.
Does not explain anything

(E) The government does not allow banks to offer some kinds of accounts in which deposits are not insured.
Does not explain
Source: LSAT

Similar question: LINK
----

The government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits, but requires the banks to pay the premiums for the insurance. Since it is depositors who primarily benefit from the security this insurance provides, the government should take steps to ensure that depositors who want this security bear the cost of it and thus should make depositors pay the premiums for insuring their own accounts.

Which of the following is assumed by the argument?

Analysis: assumption
conclusion: Because only depositor benefit from the insurance --> depositor should pay for the deposit insurance not the bank
Which can weaken the conclusion, if any premise that shows that bank also benefit from the insurance.
So the assumption is that bank doesn't gain any benefit from the deposit insurance


(A) Banks are not insured by the government against default on the loans the banks make. --> irrelevant: we are talking about individual depositor insurance

(B) Private insurance companies do not have the resources to provide banks or individual with deposit insurance. --> private companies resources are irrelevant

(C) Banks do not always cover the cost of the deposit-insurance premiums by paying depositors lower interest rates on insured deposits than the banks would on uninsured deposits. --> correct: align w/ analysis

(D) The government limits the insurance protection it provides by insuring accounts up to a certain legally defined amount only. --> irrelevant: limit will not support the conclusion

(E) The government does not allow banks to offer some kinds of accounts in which deposits are not insured. --> some kind of uninsured deposits will not support the conclusion

You think every answer except the correct one is 'out of scope' ? :P

The government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits, but requires the banks to pay the premiums for the insurance. Since it is depositors who primarily benefit from the security this insurance provides, the government should take steps to ensure that depositors who want this security bear the cost of it and thus should make depositors pay the premiums for insuring their own accounts.

Banks -> Pay Individual deposits INS
Individual -> Benefit from the INS
Individual wants INS -> Individual should be charged



Which of the following is assumed by the argument?


Who should be paying for the INS is the central concern of the argument. Whether banks are insured by the gov against loan default is irrelevant. (A) is out

We are not worry about private insurance companies. Nowhere is this mentioned in the reasoning. (B) is out

This does not address who should pay. Whether the government limits the insurance protection depending on the amount does not affect the conclusion that Individuals should pay. (D) is out.

So this says that all of the account type must be insured. Okay, but who is going to pay for this? (E) is out.



I skipped reading this answer choice because it was long and hard to grasp at the first sight. Now It is the only remaining. Should It be the correct answer choice? Let's check

Banks -> not cover INS cost by giving lower IR for Insured-Deposit Account > Uninsured-deposit Account
Negation: Banks lower the IR that ID account can earn to cover the cost of INS. So the UD account is now making more Interest Income than ID account. This is saying that the ID account is paying for it, contradicting the conclusion. For this reason, (C) is the answer.

The government provides insurance for individuals' bank deposits, but requires the banks to pay the premiums for the insurance. Since it is depositors who primarily benefit from the security this insurance provides, the government should take steps to ensure that depositors who want this security bear the cost of it and thus should make depositors pay the premiums for insuring their own accounts.

Which of the following is assumed by the argument?

(A) Banks are not insured by the government against default on the loans the banks make.

(B) Private insurance companies do not have the resources to provide banks or individual with deposit insurance.

(C) Banks do not always cover the cost of the deposit-insurance premiums by paying depositors lower interest rates on insured deposits than the banks would on uninsured deposits.

(D) The government limits the insurance protection it provides by insuring accounts up to a certain legally defined amount only.

(E) The government does not allow banks to offer some kinds of accounts in which deposits are not insured.
Note the highlighted part(since) in passage. It is the reasoning used by author behind her conclusion. It revolves around benefit a depositor gets. So, does no one - banks/govt - else benefits!!? This does not matter since benefit of depositor is concerned and no one else.
Although C is hard to decipher, POE helps since all other options fail.

A and B are irrelevant. D and E are not inferable.

Answer C.

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.