Since Bordland dropped all tariffs on our country's automobiles one

Question

Since Bordland dropped all tariffs on our country's automobiles one year ago, the number of automobiles sold annually in Bordland has not changed. However, recent statistics show a drop in the number of automobile assemblers in Bordland. Meanwhile, the number of people employed by automobile assemblers in our country has long been signiﬁcantly higher than in neighboring Bordland. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of automobiles Bordland imports annually from our country has increased.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

A. Automobiles assembled in our country are preferred in Bordland to automobiles assembled in Bordland.

B. The number of automobile assemblers in our country has increased by at least as much as the number of automobile assemblers in Borodia has decreased.

C. The average number of hours it takes a Bordland automobile assembler to assemble an automobile has not decreased signiﬁcantly during the last twelve months.

D. The number of automobiles assembled annually in our country has increased.

E. The difference between the hourly wage of automobile assemblers in our country and the hourly wage of automobile assemblers in Bordland is likely to decrease in the next few years.

This is a  Data Sufficiency Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects: 
 
   Data Sufficiency Butler 
   Problem Solving Butler  
   Sentence Correction Butler  
   Reading Comprehension Butler  
   Integrated Reasoning Butler

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

Official Explanation

Reading the question: We can focus on opinion, which surfaces with the word "therefore." The conclusion resembles a prediction: auto imports from our country into Bordland should have increased. The primary reason is that there are fewer assemblers in that country, while the number of autos sold is the same. The argument overlooks some possibilities: the auto sellers might have had spare inventory, or become more efficient. Or Bordland could be importing more from some other country and not ours. We can look for any of these possibilities as our filter.

Applying the filter: choice (C) matches our prediction. The other answer choices give irrelevant comparisons.

Logical proof: we can attempt to confirm (C) with the negation test. Suppose that the time to assemble an automobile has decreased significantly - for example, due to improved technology. That would explain how the production and hence volume of imports might have remained the same, even given lower staffing levels. The negated (C) would critically damage the argument, so the argument depends on the non-negated version of (C).

The correct answer is (C).

A_Nishith · Answer

The argument concludes that the number of automobiles imported from our country to Bordland has increased. This conclusion is based on the evidence that Bordland dropped tariffs on automobiles, but the number of automobiles sold in Bordland has remained the same, and the number of automobile assemblers in Bordland has dropped.

To evaluate the assumption, let's analyze each option:

A. Automobiles assembled in our country are preferred in Bordland to automobiles assembled in Bordland.
 Explanation:  This option suggests a preference for imported automobiles, which could explain why the number of imported automobiles increased. However, this is not necessary for the conclusion to hold, because the conclusion focuses on trade statistics, not consumer preferences.
Not necessary for the argument.

B. The number of automobile assemblers in our country has increased by at least as much as the number of automobile assemblers in Bordland has decreased.
 Explanation:  This statement tries to link the change in the number of assemblers to the change in trade statistics. However, the argument doesn’t depend on changes in the number of assemblers in our country; it is about Bordland's imports from our country increasing.
Not necessary for the argument.

C. The average number of hours it takes a Bordland automobile assembler to assemble an automobile has not decreased significantly during the last twelve months.
 Explanation:   If the time to assemble an automobile in Bordland had decreased, then Bordland might have maintained or increased production despite the drop in the number of assemblers. For the conclusion to hold (that Bordland is importing more automobiles from our country), it must be assumed that Bordland’s production hasn’t become more efficient, allowing the drop in assemblers to affect production and thus require more imports. 
This assumption is necessary.

D. The number of automobiles assembled annually in our country has increased.
 Explanation:  This option focuses on whether production in our country has increased. While relevant, the conclusion concerns imports from our country to Bordland, not necessarily changes in our country's production. It’s possible Bordland is importing more even if our production remains constant.
Not necessary for the argument.

E. The difference between the hourly wage of automobile assemblers in our country and the hourly wage of automobile assemblers in Bordland is likely to decrease in the next few years.
 Explanation:  This statement concerns future wage trends, which is irrelevant to the immediate conclusion that the number of automobiles imported has increased.
Not necessary for the argument.

Correct Answer: C

Option C is the correct assumption  because the argument relies on the idea that Bordland's domestic production has not become significantly more efficient. If Bordland assemblers were able to produce more cars in less time, the drop in the number of assemblers would not necessarily lead to an increase in imports, undermining the conclusion. Therefore, for the argument to hold, Bordland’s production efficiency must have remained stable, making option C a critical assumption.

peaky · Answer

I think D should be the answer, because the production has increased that's why the country will be able to export more.

bhanu29 · Answer

Ok here's the logic, plain and simple:

Argument structure: Sales(Bordland) = constant Assemblers(Bordland) = decreased => Conclusion: Imports from our country = increased

Basically: if less guys assembling cars in Bordland, and total cars sold same, gap must be filled from somewhere. 
That "somewhere" = imports.

Now D: "our country's production increased." Apply negation test -> assume production did NOT increase in our country. Does conclusion still hold? Yes, no problem, we can just export the same cars we were already making, redirect some units meant for other markets to Bordland. Total output doesn't need to increase at all. So D = not required. Eliminate it.

C: "assembly time per unit in Bordland hasn't dropped." Negate it -> assume time per unit DID drop (i.e., Bordland workers got faster/more efficient). Then fewer assemblers can still churn same output as before. Sales still constant -> zero gap -> zero need for extra imports -> conclusion breaks down completely.
Since negating C directly kills the argument, C is the necessary assumption. D's negation, on the other hand, doesn't touch the argument at all.

Simple rule: If negating an answer choice, destroys the argument. Then that is the assumption. C passes, D fails. Hence C is winner.

Since Bordland dropped all tariffs on our country's automobiles one

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Since Bordland dropped all tariffs on our country's automobiles one

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards