Because city council members in small towns are intimately

Because city council members in small towns are intimately acquainted with the public they serve, they clearly have a more difficult job than city council members in larger cities.

The conclusion above rests on which of the following assumptions?

Working directly with members of the public is the one of the most challenging aspects of serving on a city council.
Managing the affairs of a large city requires a more significant time commitment than working directly with the public.
City council members in small towns are often related to a certain percentage of the population, making them intimately acquainted with the people they serve.
Residents of small towns often attend city council meetings to present their concerns.
City council members in large cities rarely engage the public directly.


Consider Kudos, If my post helps!!!!

Archit

Premise: small town council members are involved with public they serve.
Conclusion: small city council members clearly have a more difficult job than city council members in larger cities.

Now let see what is going on here :

A- Working directly with members of the public is the one of the most challenging aspects of serving on a city council.
IMO : this answer is Correct because it fills the gap between the premise and conlusion.
Say Small town council members are involved with public they serve + Working direclty with members of the public is the one of the most challenging aspects of serving on a city council --> Small city council members clearly have a more difficult job than city council members in larger cities.

B- Managing the affairs of a large city requires a more significant time commitment than working directly with the public.
Wrong, this option actually states that city council members in larger cities have a more difficult job than small city council members, which is the opposite of what the premise asserts

C- City council members in small towns are often related to a certain percentage of the population, making them intimately acquainted with the people they serve.
Out of scope , Wrong
D-Residents of small towns often attend city council meetings to present their concerns.
Out of scope , Wrong
E- City council members in large cities rarely engage the public directly.
If we negate it , the argument still can be valid then Wrong

A is the answer.
Working directly with members of the public is the one of the most challenging aspects of serving on a city council.
This fills the gap between council members in small towns are intimately acquainted with the public they serve and they clearly have a more difficult job than city council members in larger cities.

B is wrong. We are talking about council members in small town. Large city is out of scope here.

C is wrong. Although it tells you the people from small town are well acquainted, it does not tells you why its a difficult job.

D and E are simply out of scope.

A. I dint even read the other options since A was apt. I know thats not a good habit though

My major confusion was can being directly acquainted mean working closely ? Infact this has to be the assumption .. It may also be the case that you know lot of people but they don't work with you closely.. infact they might not be interested in public issues..

Nevertheless the OA is A.

I will post the OA after discussions....Excellent cause and effect Assumptions question!!!

My take is E.
A) Contender
B) Out of scope... time commitment is not talked about.
C) out of scope. ... reason for acquaintance is not relevant
D) out of scope.. no comparative information given about meetings
E) Contender

Between A and E,
A)
Working directly with members of the public is the one of the most challenging aspects of serving on a city council
however it could be the same for large cities as well as it may be for small cities. Option E eliminates this possibility and says
City council members in large cities rarely engage the public directly.
Thus E wins

KUDOS if u like

BTW great great one !!! I'm still considering option E as well

Thanks Archit143 !

+1 for u

Hi Rock
can you elaborate your reasoning for Selecting A.....I find the reasoning very skewed...I mean it is cause and effect reasoning, if you address in terms of Cause and effect . it will help and you will be confident of A or E....


Consider Kudos If my post helps!!!

Archit

I agree Sir
Cause : city council members in small towns are intimately acquainted with the public they serve

Effect: they ( small city council members) clearly have a more difficult job than city council members in larger cities.

Between :
A- Working directly with members of the public is the one of the most challenging aspects of serving on a city council.

and

E- City council members in large cities rarely engage the public directly.

My take is E:
why? because the argument needs E to be valid. if somehow city council members in large cities do usually engage the public directly then they would be intimately acquainted with the public they serve as small city council do. Then, the effect falls apart right ?! So it is the correct answer while option A cannot be assumed since the argument didn't tell anything about whether city council members in large cities work directly with memebrs of the public or Not.

I think Choice A is best. (though not fully agree with it)

Analysis :- (Premise) city council members in small towns have close interaction with public they serve than their counterparts in large cities do. (Assumption) serving the person whom you have a close interaction is difficult. (Conclusion) So their job is difficult.

A) Contender

B) out of scope

C) The thing to be assumed is having close interaction is difficult to serve. This choice explains why the members of small towns are intimatly acquainted with people. So this choice only strengthens the conclusion.

D) This choice is also explains why the members of small towns are intimatly acquainted with people. So this choice only strenthens the conclusion.

E) This, we can say, is only the extension of premise. City council members in large cities are not intimately acquinted with public they serve..why .. They rarely engage the public directly.whether this be assumed or not, conclusion would not have any effect on it. The thing to be assumed is having close interaction is difficult to serve.

Regards,

Abhijit

I fully agree with u!!!! E is extension of the premise and hence the assumption It is necessary if you then check that to satisfy the criteria for it to be a assumption.

Kudos , if u like.

+1 for E (Though I found all choices to be very awkwardly framed).

Sagar, E goes on to prove that yes, city council members have less interaction with public, but why we need that?? the only thing we need is less/more interaction the factor deciding difficulty? A says yes it is the deciding factor

Regards,

Abhijit

Abhijit,

Plz read carefully how I compared option A with option E. Option A does not qualify the full conclusion. A only supports that
So their job is difficult.
While E supports the conclusion:
they clearly have a more difficult job than city council members in larger cities.

You have considered incomplete conclusion. Its somewhat like comparison or drawing analogy for large cities based on what happens in small cities.

thus, choosing E over A on below logic:

Working directly with members of the public is the one of the most challenging aspects of serving on a city council
however it could be the same for large cities as well as it may be for small cities. Option E eliminates this possibility and says
City council members in large cities rarely engage the public directly.

Kudos If u like;;;
Regards,

Sagar

I don't really care for the question, because the conclusion does not require us to specifically assume any of the five answer choices. We learn that small town council members work with the public. The conclusion is that they have a more difficult job than big city council members. There's a huge gap in that argument. The conclusion only follows if we know that it is difficult to work with the public. So A is the only answer which bridges that gap.

But we do not need to assume specifically that working with the public is "one of the most challenging" parts of a council member's job, which is why I don't care much for answer A. If small-town and big-city council members had exactly the same jobs with the one exception that small-town council members had an additional challenge - they need to work with the public - then small-town council members would have more difficult jobs than big-city members, even if working with the public was not one of the most challenging parts of their jobs. So as A is worded, it's not an assumption required for the argument.

edit - rereading the question, we also need to assume something like what E says. The question never mentions what interaction big-city council members have with the public. The argument only makes any sense if we assume they have less interaction than do small-town council members. The wording is so imprecise though that it's hard to tell what any of it means; being " intimately acquainted" with the public does not mean the same thing as "engage the public directly".

So the argument requires two assumptions, and there are two answers which are imperfect but are reasonably close to what we need. I don't think the language of the question is precise enough to let us distinguish between those two choices.
_________________

In my opinion this is not a fully gmat-like question because generally speaking if you see each one of the Og questions they provide a context and more premises.

They have a well balanced approach giving information: not so short (such as in this situation) not so convoluted.

here we have a brief sentence and a conclusion (even not so clear how it is formulated) BUT we do not have an argument.

back to question at stake: C and E are the most probable answers

What not convince me is this "in small towns are often related to a certain percentage of the population,"

So I go for E



ian has precede me
_________________

In the meantime, i have posted OA......

Because city council members in small towns are intimately acquainted with the public they serve, they clearly have a more difficult job than city council members in larger cities.

The conclusion above rests on which of the following assumptions?

Working directly with members of the public is the one of the most challenging aspects of serving on a city council - Provides the parameter for considering a job tough.

Managing the affairs of a large city requires a more significant time commitment than working directly with the public - If true, would negate the sentence.

City council members in small towns are often related to a certain percentage of the population, making them intimately acquainted with the people they serve - Solves no purpose, this should make the city council people work easier.

Residents of small towns often attend city council meetings to present their concerns - Solves no purpose.

City council members in large cities rarely engage the public directly. - Doesn't help in determining why the job of small town city council is tougher.





Give KUDOS if the post helps you...