howdoesitmatter wrote:
I don't think C is necessary assumption here and OA is wrong.
Answer cannot be C.
Here's my reasoning-
Let's say there are 3 new companies starting up with 10 new jobs each and one established company which will give 50 more jobs. Hence total number of jobs-
10+10+10+50= 80
Now as per stimulus established companies are not adding as many jobs as they did last year, so the in worse case scenario- the number of jobs drop to 1 from 50.
Now lets negate C-
This year, the new companies starting up will provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.
So for example new companies provide more jobs per company than new companies last year (note- we don't really know what SUBSTANTIALLY means here, it can be 20,30,40 etc)
For example, new companies provide 10 more jobs than last year. Total number of jobs = 20+20+20= 60
Total number of jobs created (new startups + established companies)= 60+1= 61. Which is much less than 80.
This is true whats given in question stem and DOESN'T DESTROY THE ARGUMENT. HENCE IT CAN'T BE THE ANSWER.
Negation of assumption SHOULD 100% DESTROY THE ARGUMENT.
Where am i doing wrong? Please help me.
So what is the infamous "negation test", exactly? Well, you go with the opposite of the assumption, and if that breaks the argument, you've found your answer! Sounds suspiciously simple. But unfortunately, we've written countless "negation test gone wrong" posts.
What went wrong here? Let's start with the conclusion:
"...unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created."
Pretty strong statement! This basically says that there is NO way for Derderia to break its record for new jobs created, UNLESS a record number of companies start up this year. So if we can come up with ANY way for Derderia to break its record for new jobs created WITHOUT having a record number of companies start up this year, then we've broken the argument.
And that's pretty easy to do. Let's say that a new company called, say, Amazin, comes to Derderia and opens up a giant business complex that will employee 100,000 people. Even if that's the ONLY new company that year and established companies only add a handful of new jobs, that 100,000 figure could be enough to crush last year's record, EVEN THOUGH we certainly don't have a record number of companies starting up this year (we only have one: Amazin).
As written, this argument has a gaping hole. We can easily come up with a scenario that contradicts the conclusion. So how do we make this argument/conclusion airtight? Well, we need to ensure that situations like the one just described cannot happen. And that's exactly what choice (C) does: it tells us that new companies like Amazin will NOT provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year. And if that's the case, it's impossible to come up with a scenario that breaks the argument.
In attacking this assumption question, don't ask yourself, "What is the opposite of this choice, and does that break the argument?" (in other words, don't rely on the "negation test"). Instead, ask yourself, "If I DON'T make this assumption, what is
possible -- and do
any of those
possibilities break the argument?"
The key word there is "possible." Sure, you can come up with a scenario in which (1) new companies provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year and (2) the conclusion still holds. But that doesn't matter. All that matters is that without (C), we can come up with possible scenarios that break the argument.
In other words, the argument is not airtight without (C). And that means that (C) is, indisputably, the right answer.
I hope that helps!