Research suggests that people who feel protected from a specific type

Hello, SDW2. I would be happy to offer some assistance. Perhaps because the question reminded me so much of this other tough assumption question, in which an unforeseen agent enters the picture right at the beginning of the argument, this question did not prove too tricky for me. A valid assumption will create a logical bridge between premise(s) and argument. Take a look at the argument again and see if you can spot the unforeseen agent:


Now, you should be asking yourself, How did we go from research on people to commentary on what constitutes a healthy economy? That seems like a bit of a stretch. Reading just the first sentence, I was anticipating a follow-up sentence on physical safety, perhaps. A specific type of risk does not make me automatically drum up a financial or economic risk, but that could just be me. In any case, in my assumption I am going to be looking for a logical link between A, the research, and C, the argument on how to create a healthy economy.


This fits perfectly. If you prefer the negation technique, you can insert a not between is and conducive and test for truthfulness. However, I prefer a drag-and-drop technique.

Premise: Research suggests that people who feel protected from a specific type of risk have a decreased tendency to act in a way calculated to avoid that risk.

Assumption: The willingness of people to take significant financial risks with potentially catastrophic consequences is conducive to a healthy economy.

Argument: Therefore, to have a healthy economy, it seems prudent to have bankruptcy provisions that will adequately protect people against the financial catastrophe that can result from financial risk-taking.

Notice how this assumption seamlessly stitches together information from both parts of the passage. People need to take risks to create a healthy economy, but bankruptcy provisions should be in place to adequately protect people against the potentially disastrous consequences of financial risk-taking. I know the double negative of the premise can be hard to follow: a decreased tendency... to avoid risk. But if people feel less inclined to avoid risk (because they feel protected), they will take more risks, and the cycle is complete. In short, we have found our answer.


I do not necessarily see people who engage in financial risk-taking (from the argument) as citizens who use their money unwisely. The passage makes no such judgment on risk-takers. It says that financial catastrophe... can result, not that it will. When I think of people spending or using money unwisely, I think of gambling, (excessive) drinking or smoking, and so on—you know, the typical vice material. Whether you negate or place this supposed assumption between the two lines of the passage, you will get nowhere with this one.


Watch out for some anything. Unless the passage deals in absolutes—e.g., arguing that something must be done, done in a particular way, or that all or no people/things are involved or affected—this sort of language typically steers the test-taker wayward. And this answer choice proves no different. Where does the passage insist that all people need to behave the same way? Nowhere. The first line merely informs us of a tendency in people. Then, the end of the statement is the opposite of what we want in an assumption. If some people will not take certain risks even if they feel adequately protected by bankruptcy provisions, then why in the world would the argument then deem it prudent to have bankruptcy provisions that will adequately protect people against... financial catastrophe? That would make no sense at all.


Blame has nothing to do with the content of the passage, and there is a more noticeable gap if we seek to tie together the findings of the research and the argument on how to have a healthy economy with this information. Is the economy based on scapegoats? I am having trouble even brainstorming how I could get behind this answer choice.


This answer choice starts off well enough, but then it takes an extreme turn in only, and the specific path it takes in confining risk to that which arises from business ventures is equally extreme. Financial risk-taking cannot be labeled business ventures with a great degree of confidence. Again, consider gambling. Is that really a business venture? Watch out for extremes.


Finally, Skills Insight is a free product that GMAC™ released on Valentine's Day, 2022. You can read the announcement here. It is always exciting to see freshly released official questions, even if some of the questions looked familiar when I went through the platform myself. I am wondering whether this is what the GMAT™ community will get this year in the way of new questions, rather than an updated OG.

If anyone has any questions on or concerns over anything I have written above, feel free to follow up. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew