The media claim that the economy is entering a phase of growth and pro

Serve me a slice of C.

If it's easier to be bankrupt, no wonder lawyers are busier.

If not, the arugment falls apart.

IMO C

The media claim that the economy is entering a phase of growth and prosperity. They point to lower unemployment rates and increased productivity. This analysis is false, though. The number of people filing for bankruptcy has increased every month for the last six months, and bankruptcy lawyers report that they are busier than they have been in years.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A Unemployment rates are not useful indicators of growth and prosperity --> negating: Unemployment rates are useful indicators of growth and prosperity --> not strong enough to weaken the argument
B Economic growth cannot be measured in terms of productivity -->negating: Economic growth can be measured in terms of productivity --> not strong enough to weaken the argument
C Legislation has not been recently passed to make legal bankruptcy easier to obtain --> best: If legislation has been easier, it accounts for the increase of people filling for bankruptcy, not because of the deterioration of the economy
D There has not been an increase in the number of bankruptcy lawyers -->weaken: because there has been a decrease or remain of number of lawyers, this accounts for the busier activity of lawyers, not because of the increase of bankruptcy cases
E The media often misrepresent the current state of economic affairs -->irrelevant

The author admits to increased productivity and decreased unemployment rate. He/She just adds that the increase of bankrupcy filing is worth consideration that the analysis is false. The author assumes that the increase number in bankruptcy filing could be a reflection of the economy's state.

(C) removes the possibility that the increase in bankruptcy is not because the legislation has made filings easier to do so. If that is the case, then it is just because people are taking advantage of the easiness to file bankruptcy and perhaps, bankruptcy rate in the country has not really increased.

Answer is C

Analysis :- (Premise) media's claim is that economy is growing, (Evidence) Employment rates are decreasing and that of productivity increasing. (Counter Premise) Number of cases of filling for bankruptcy increased and bankruptcy lawyers are busier than they ever (Conclusion) So the analysis of media is false and economy is not progressing.

Author has attributed increasing number of bankruptcy cases to the conclusion that economy is not progressing. In doing so he has assumed that there are no other reasons for the increased number of bankruptcy cases. So any answer choice that would close the possibility of different reason for an increase in bankruptcy cases would be correct here.

A) This choice is indeed enticing however it should be noted here that this choice goes on to weaken the media's claim but it does not establish the relationship between counterpremise and conclusion. Number of people filling bankruptcy cases has increased. Unemployment rates are not useful indicators of growth and prosperity, so the media's claim is not true. This sentence does not make sense so this choice can not be correct.

B) This choice is also wrong for the same reasons cited in choice A.

C) Correct Choice. This close the possibility of another reason for increase in bankruptcy cases.

D) Irrelevant

E) Incorrect for same reason cited in choice A

Regards,

Abhijit

Hi mun23,

Premises: Media claims economy is entering a phase of growth and prosperity --> lower unemployment rates and increased productivity

Conclusion: The analysis that economy is entering a phase of growth and prosperity is false.

Reason given for conclusion: High bankruptcy rates

This is again a cause and effect reasoning similar to the question in the post below.

Cause: High number of bankruptcies
Effect: Economy is not growing

surveys-consistently-show-that-the-best-selling-ice-cream-148675.html#p1191167

As the reason for the conclusion is the higher number of bankruptcies, the answer choice which does not provide information on bankruptcies is likely to be incorrect

(A)Unemployment rates are not useful indicators of growth and prosperity.

Even if unemployment rates are not useful indicators of growth and prosperity, there could be other indicators and this may make the claim by the media true. i.e. this choice is not the one that "must be true" for the conclusion to be true.

(B)Economic growth cannot be measured in terms of productivity.

Again this choice does not have to be true for the media's claim to be false. Productivity is just an indicator, the economy may not be growing or may be growing as there could be other indicators for economic growth. Moreover, (B) also does not mention anything about bankruptcies

(C)Legislation has not been recently passed to make legal bankruptcy easier to obtain.

This is the assumption that we have to make for our conclusion to be true. If bankruptcies are being filed because of a recent change in legislation then the reason to believe that the claim by the media is false becomes irrelevant. So, (C) has to be true for the conclusion to be true which states that the claim of media is false. Note that this choice is making the questionable claim by the author regarding bankruptcies a legitimate one. This is an excellent example of a choice which eliminates an alternative explanation of the evidence.

(D)There has not been an increase in the number of bankruptcy lawyers.

Even if there is an increase in the number of lawyers, this choice does not give us any information about the bankruptcies which the stimulus relates to the falsification of media's claims.

(E)The media often misrepresent the current state of economic affairs.

If media often misrepresent the current state of economic affairs then our conclusion "could be" true, but not necessarily. The correct assumption choice will make the conclusion unequivocally true.

Hope this helps,

Vercules

Hi there,

Good question. This one is a bit confusing:) I think that you might be missing the conclusion. The conclusion is that the analysis of the media is false. That the economy is NOT entering a phase of growth. Why? Because bankruptcies are increasing. The assumption must be that the bankruptcies are an indication that the economy is NOT entering a phase of growth. Is this an official question? Breakdown is below. Let me know if you have any questions! Happy studies. A.

a) Unemployment rates are not useful indicators of growth and prosperity.
This could strengthen the argument but is not necessary for the argument to be true.
b) Economic growth cannot be measured in terms of productivity.
Same as A
c) Legislation has not been recently passed to make legal bankruptcy easier to obtain.
If this is the case then it would not make sense to use the increase in bankruptcies as evidence for a tanking economy.
d) There has not been an increase in the number of bankruptcy lawyers.
This is out of scope. Nothing to do with the state of the economy or the number of bankruptcies.
e) The media often misrepresent the current state of economic affairs.
This is out of scope. Nothing to do with the state of the economy or the number of bankruptcies.

Completely agree with anurag16

Negate option (C)

Legislation has recently been passed to make legal bankruptcy easier to obtain.

Result -

1. Number of people filing for bankruptcy has increased
2. Bankruptcy lawyers report that they are busier than before

The arguement falls apart, hence correct answer is definitely (C)

tough assumption question..
E can be eliminated right away...
D - looks like a strengthener..negated - more lawyers..and lawyers are busier than before - so looks ok...
C - if legislation has been easier to obtain - more people would file for bankruptcy - and thus the conclusion is not true. people file for bankruptcy not because the economy is bad, but because they can - for ex. to avoid paying loans/taxes/etc. so C is better than D...
B and A - well..we are given these 2 in the argument...UR + increased productivity -> sign that economy is ok..
B - measuring the productivity - irrelevant..
A - tough one..

went with C in the end...
3 possible answer choices...wow..

"Lower unemployment rates and increased productivity" are the factors cited by media to make its claim that the economy is entering a phase of growth and prosperity. So these two are the main indicators in the argument. "A" and "B" goes against the facts.Hence these are not the assumptions.

Hello experts I have an issue regarding this CR problem,

I do understand why C could be the right answer , but I don't understand why B is wrong, in my opinion they do the exact same thing but with different point of view, let me explain what I mean.

On the the one hand we have the premise that supports the claim of the media (they point to lower unemployment rates and increased productivity) on the other hand we have the evidence of the author who claims that bankruptcies have increased etc.

If we negate answer choice B we have , Economic growth CAN be measured in terms of productivity , then the argument would be destroyed, because the author could not claim that the analysis is false, if there is an increased productivity and economic growth CAN be measured in terms of productivity then even if there is a rise in bankruptcies the analysis of the media cannot be false.

Answer choice C attacks the premises of the author and of course destroys the argument by saying that that the media are not false there was an alternative reason why bankruptcies have increased.

Could you please explain what is wrong with my way of thinking is it something that I have misunderstood?

UNSTOPPABLE12
Negating B might introduce some doubt in the conclusion, but it wouldn't destroy the argument. The author is refuting the claim in the media that we are entering a new phase of growth and prosperity. Even if growth can be measured in terms of productivity, that doesn't necessarily mean that we have all the information we need to conclude that we are entering a new phase. As a parallel, human growth can be measured in terms of height, weight, cranial capacity, etc., but if we just measure one of those things, we don't know all we need to know about the person's growth, let alone whether they are entering some new and glorious phase of life.

This is a great example that has two answer choices that strengthen the argument but are not required assumptions. These are the trickiest to eliminate because the negation test seems to indicate that the answers are required.

So in a sense, both A and B strengthen the argument but they are not REQUIRED necessary assumptions that the author is basing his argument on

He uses evidence about bankruptcy to show that the economy is NOT entering a phase of growth.


Both A and B would certainly help the argument if they were true. But the author does not need to assume either for his argument to be logical and effective (for his argument to make sense and work).

However, if the laws have recently changed regarding bankruptcy (negating C), this fact would weaken the support for the Conclusion because the evidence cited no longer seems to support the author’s conclusion that the economy is not entering a growth cycle.

Namely, the author’s evidence doesn’t support the claim that the economy is NOT in a growth cycle IF the following is true:

The only reason there is a rise in bankruptcy is because of new laws making it easier to file for bankruptcy. The rise in bankruptcy really isn’t a result from the economy performing poorly. It is the result of these new laws. In such a case, the author’s evidence wouldn’t support his claim.

Thus, the author needs to assume C in order for the evidence to support the conclusion.

Posted from my mobile device

if it is easier to obtain bankruptcy, then how will it increase the rate. Is it like bankruptcy is a positive thing that people are dying to obtain.
Definitely, if a business is going bankrupt that mean they are facing monetary issues.
After reading this answer if seems like it is a good thing to get bankrupt 😂

Hello,

I need some explanation here. The statement says: "Their analysis is false". It does not say that the analysis is 'wrong' or 'mistaken'.
Saying that the analysis is 'false' should mean that the presented analysis is actually not true and the real analysis obtained different results.

With this thinking my answer was E.

Could you please clarify where I am going wrong?

Regards,
Ankit

Hello, Ankit. Your analysis hinges on a narrow, perhaps technical or scientific, interpretation of the word false, one that the GMAT™ would not expect a test-taker to know. (Even if the word is used in a more technical sense, as in this official CR question, a definition is provided to ensure a level playing field.) It is important to understand the meaning of the word in context, a skill that everyone needs to develop to succeed on the Verbal measure. Since the question stem makes reference to an argument, we can identify the third line of the passage as that argument, an opinion that runs contrary to the claim made by the media. This argument suggests that the claim is wayward or inaccurate, or, to use your own words, wrong or mistaken. The evidence offered in support of this view is the final line of the passage. In all, the passage itself is easy to map out by line: claim | evidence | argument | counter-evidence. So, what does the argument necessarily assume in asserting that the claim that the economy is entering a phase of growth and prosperity is inaccurate? We can look to the evidence provided at the end of the passage: in short, more people are filing for bankruptcy each month, and bankruptcy lawyers are busier. My take on the answer choices:


The argument is centered on bankruptcy. It is not that unemployment rates cannot be a useful economic benchmark, just that bankruptcy rates, according to the argument, need to be taken into consideration. Thus, this answer choice overstates the case and can be eliminated.


There is no way this can be any more correct than the first answer choice above, since they derive equally from the second line of the passage. Once again, the language is too strong.


Remember, the evidence offered in support of the argument is that the number of people filing for bankruptcy has increased every month for the last six months, effectively keeping bankruptcy lawyers busier than ever. If laws have been passed that make bankruptcy more accessible, then a logical bridge between premise (evidence) and argument would be severed. This answer choice fits as a necessary assumption, so we should keep it.


There is a nice play here on information from the passage. The number of bankruptcy lawyers should not matter, though. Without more people, or clients of bankruptcy lawyers, to file claims for bankruptcy, the argument breaks down. Whether there are more or fewer bankruptcy lawyers, the passage tells us that they are busier than they have been in years. We can eliminate this option.


Finally, the answer choice that your interpretation of false led you to. But you should not overlook the modifier often. Why would it be necessary for the argument to assume that the media often misrepresent such information? Could it not be the case that the media have gotten it wrong just this once? The argument would hold, all the same. I am not going to say that this is the only way to eliminate (E), but it was easy to see through as soon as I hit often, and I always look for easy targets.

Perhaps the question makes more sense now. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

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.