The Mayor’s petition to revise existing pension systems has raised

Analyst: The Mayor’s petition to revise existing pension systems has raised a significant amount of protest from the city’s labor unions, whose leaders fear that the revision will lead to reduced pensions for retired workers, citing as evidence the fact that the pay scales of government workers are often reduced when the economy experiences a downturn. However, in this case, the union leaders’ fears are baseless since the pension amounts have already been guaranteed to government workers.

The analyst’s argument depends on which of the following assumptions?

A. Some benefits for government employees will continue regardless of the actual amount of pension that is paid to them. - Some benefits for government employees, doesn't justify the significant amount mentioned in the stimulus. So A is incorrect.
B. The union leaders’ protests are a result of expectations from pensioners that their interests will be protected by the labor unions. - The derived result "The union leaders’ protests are a result of expectations from pensioners" is no where mentioned. It is out of scope. So B is eliminated.
C. A current economic downturn is the reason for the Mayor’s decision to revise the city’s existing pension system. - We don't know why mayor is revising the plan, so we don't want to assume it is because of economic downturn. So C is incorrect.
D. The pay scales of government workers that are reduced in times of economic downturns are not already guaranteed by the government. - Here the government after a economic downturn, it is not yet decided what to do. This align with conclusion "the union leaders’ fears are baseless". So D is correct.
E. Revisions of pension systems have not led to disadvantages for pensioners in the past. - We don't know what had happened in the past. Out of scope and E is eliminated.

The answer choice is D.

Official Solution :
Analyst: The Mayor’s petition to revise existing pension systems has raised a significant amount of protest from the city’s labor unions, whose leaders fear that the revision will lead to reduced pensions for retired workers, citing as evidence the fact that the pay scales of government workers are often reduced when the economy experiences a downturn. However, in this case, the union leaders’ fears are baseless since the pension amounts have already been guaranteed to government workers.

The analyst’s argument depends on which of the following assumptions?

Argument Analysis


Pre-Thinking
Conclusion Clarification

The conclusion says that the fears of LU leaders are baseless. This means that the author concludes that the revision of PS won’t lead to reduced pensions for RW.

Pre-Thinking Approach

To pre-think assumptions, we will falsify the conclusion or look for scenarios under which it is no longer valid even when the given premises are true. The assumption then will be that such conditions don’t exist.

Linkage #1: Pension amounts already guaranteed to GW

What if, already guaranteed amounts can still change? Let’s say the government which promised these amounts has changed. The new government may not have the obligation to keep the promises made earlier.

Assumption 1: Guaranteed pension amounts can’t change.

Also, the conclusion here discards the comparison with the pay scales of GW because the amounts in case of RW are guaranteed. So, the author is assuming that:

Assumption 2: Pay scales of GW that are reduced under recession aren’t guaranteed.

With this understanding in mind, let’s take a look at the option statements.

Answer Choices
A . Some benefits for government employees will continue regardless of the actual amount of pension that is paid to them.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

The argument is only concerned with pension amounts, not other benefits.

B. The union leaders’ protests are a result of expectations from pensioners that their interests will be protected by the labor unions.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

Reasons behind the union leaders’ protests are irrelevant.

C. A current economic downturn is the reason for the Mayor’s decision to revise the city’s existing pension system.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

D. The reference to the revisions of the pay scales of GW in times of recession is only an example. It is not a must that the reason behind this revision of PS is the same.

The pay scales of government workers that are reduced in times of economic downturns are not already guaranteed by the government.

Correct

This choice is written along the lines of our pre-thinking per Linkage #1, Assumption 2.

E. Revisions of pension systems have not led to disadvantages for pensioners in the past.

Incorrect - Irrelevant

We aren’t concerned with the past. The argument is about the mayor’s plan to revise the PS at present.

While reading the argument, two things should click immediately.
1) pay scale is not reduced and it is guaranteed,hence the economy is also not experiencing a downturn
Or
2) last time when pay scale was reduced n the economy experienced a downturn,the pension was not guaranteed


So going by our prethinking n POE, Option D fits with out point 2.

Hope u find this helpful

Posted from my mobile device

Neither of the choices seem right

I agree with you, even the right answer does not seem right to me. The answer D should be turned into the negation of it in order to be the assumption of the argument because the conclusion indicates that the amount has been already guaranteed. any thought?

Responding to a pm:

- Pay scales of government workers are often reduced when the economy experiences a downturn
- Mayor’s petition to revise existing pension systems has raised a significant amount of protest from the city’s labor unions, whose leaders fear that the revision will lead to reduced pensions for retired worker
- the pension amounts have already been guaranteed to government workers

Conclusion: The union leaders’ fears are baseless

The argument is concluding that leaders are worrying about nothing based on "pension amounts have been guaranteed".
So the assumption here is that if the pension amount is guaranteed, it is not reduced. We need an assumption that links 'guaranteed payments' with 'no worries of reduction'.

A. Some benefits for government employees will continue regardless of the actual amount of pension that is paid to them

The worry is "reduction in amount".

B. The union leaders’ protests are a result of expectations from pensioners that their interests will be protected by the labor unions.

Irrelevant why leaders are protesting - whether pensioners have expectations from them or not.

C. A current economic downturn is the reason for the Mayor’s decision to revise the city’s existing pension system.

This is a reason to worry. If there is a downturn, it is possible that pension will be reduced.

D. The pay scales of government workers that are reduced in times of economic downturns are not already guaranteed by the government.

Correct. It links the pay scales that are reduced with those that are guaranteed. It tells us that the ones that are reduced are the ones not guaranteed. So the ones that are guaranteed are not reduced. By telling us that the pensions are guaranteed, the argument is telling us that they will not be reduced. So the argument is assuming that guaranteed means they will not be reduced.

E. Revisions of pension systems have not led to disadvantages for pensioners in the past.

Not an assumption of the argument. Doesn't link guaranteed with no worry.

Answer (D)

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.