Journalist: Workers at Facsum Inc. have threatened to strike if manage

Assumption which supports the conclusion that strike is inevitable is:Facsum likely does not have sufficient cash flow or cash reserves to support increased expenses, so it will not be able to except the demands put forward by the workers

Supporting fact:The majority of the losses were due to a significant decline in profit margins,since if it doesn't have proper money from the profits ,the company won't be able to to increase the pay of workers

Posted from my mobile device

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

Why is the supporting fact not 6?

Is it because it is not a fact as it states 'likely'?

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.


Thank you

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.

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.

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.

Focus on the assumption only first.

Workers at Facsum Inc. have threatened to strike if management does not meet their demands for a raise.
Further, workers are insisting that the company rehire 12 employees who were laid off.
It is well-known that Facsum reported that negative profits in 3 of its previous 4 quarterly earnings reports.

Conclusion:We believe a strike is inevitable.

On what basis is the author concluding that a strike is inevitable? The premise states that Facsum reported negative profits. He is assuming that there are no resources from which raise can be paid. There is no mention of unwillingness of the management. The premise mentions the financial condition. The argument talks about the ability of Facsum to give raises. Not about their willingness.

So, "Fascum is unwilling to negotiate with the workers." is not an assumption the author is making. It is not necessary that Facsum is unwilling to negotiate. It may be willing or may not be willing but the point is that it doesn't have the capacity to give a raise.

That is why the correct set is:
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.

If profit margins have declined, it becomes likely that Facsum does not have sufficient cash flow or cash reserves.
_________________

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.

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.
_________________

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.

­

can someone please shed light on why supporting fact is "decline in profit margin", why couldn't it be "unwillingness"?