With Critical Reasoning, we'll want to start by reading the question so that we can identify how we're being tested. In this case, we have an assumption question, so we're looking for the answer choice that must be true to connect the dots between evidence and conclusion.

If council members argue that changing the name would result in immediate financial benefits for the town's inhabitants, we want the answer that - if false - would completely deteriorate the logic of the argument.

A. most of the inhabitants would favor a change in the name of the town <- In this case, it doesn't really matter to us how the inhabitants feel about the change, we're arguing that the change, if implemented, would yield immediate financial benefits. Could be true, could be false, not an assumption.

B. many inhabitants would be ready to supply tourists with information about Washington Irving and his “legend” <- Again, could be true or false, so it's not an assumption.

C. the town can accomplish, at a very low cost per capita, the improvements in tourist facilities that an increase in tourism would require <- Whether they are at capacity to make inexpensive improvements doesn't make or break our argument. This could still be false and, in a number of ways, the argument could still hold true.

D. other towns in the region have changed their names to reflect historical associations and have, as a result, experienced a rise in tourism <- This is a common trap answer that doesn't make or break our argument. Whether or not this has been successful for other towns does not have to be the case for this particular instance to work.

E. the immediate per capita cost to inhabitants of changing the name of the town would be less than the immediate per capita revenue they would receive from the change <- Here we are! If this were untrue, or if "the immediate per capita cost to inhabitants of changing the name of the town would not be less than the immediate per capita revenue they would receive from the change," this completely destroys our argument, as we need revenue to outweigh costs to inhabitants in order to conclude that the change would yield "immediate financial benefits." E is our answer.

Assumption negation, and testing answers to the statement "does this have to be true for the argument to be valid" will aid us in using process of elimination to arrive at the correct answer and weed out convincing wrong answers that may strengthen, or impact the argument otherwise, but don't have to be true for the argument to be valid.

Hope this helps!
_________________

Use the Negation technique for Assumption questions. If we negate an answer choice and it completely wrecks the argument, then that is the correct answer.



The immediate cost would be more than the immediate revenue?

That would not result in immediate financial benefit for the town's inhabitants.

Answer: E
_________________

Assumption: Inhabitants will receive immediate financial benefits.
Answer E: For such assumption to be true immediate revenue must outweigh immediate costs

Thank you! Very well explained.,

The town council of North Tarrytown favored changing the name of the town to Sleepy Hollow. Council members argued that making the town's association with Washington Irving and his famous “legend” more obvious would increase tourism and result immediately in financial benefits for the town's inhabitants.

The council members' argument requires the assumption that

A. most of the inhabitants would favor a change in the name of the town
B. many inhabitants would be ready to supply tourists with information about Washington Irving and his “legend”
C. the town can accomplish, at a very low cost per capita, the improvements in tourist facilities that an increase in tourism would require
D. other towns in the region have changed their names to reflect historical associations and have, as a result, experienced a rise in tourism
E. the immediate per capita cost to inhabitants of changing the name of the town would be less than the immediate per capita revenue they would receive from the change(Correct)

Hey VeritasPrepHailey,

Thank you for such a concise and pointed explanation. I have a query regarding negating/ falsifying Option (D)

Option D: other towns in the region have changed their names to reflect historical associations and have, as a result, experienced a rise in tourism

Negation 1: other towns in the region have not changed their names to reflect historical associations and have, as a result, experienced a rise in tourism

Negation 2: other towns in the region have not changed their names to reflect historical associations and have not, as a result, experienced a rise in tourism

Which of the above two options is correct?

Thanks!!

D is trap but it has another reason as main argument is about financial benefits which is not addressed in option D. Therefore, option E is much better here.

AndrewN

If the option were changed from
THIS

TO


Would it be a correct answer ?
_________________

Good question, warrior1991. I would still have to say no. Although you have changed the unqualified very low cost per capita to something that better reflects the balance between cost and revenue, the placement of immediate allows for the interpretation that the answer choice is freeze-framing the financial state of the residents of the freshly christened Sleepy Hollow right now, prior to the influx of tourists. That is, there does not seem to be a guarantee that tourists will flock to the area, just that the town will be poised for that possibility. Notice how choice (E) fixes the issue by discussing the immediate per capita revenue they would receive. Don't get me wrong: I think plenty of people would choose your proposed choice (C). It is a fine-tuned trap answer, but one that does not ultimately deliver to the required end.

Thank you for seeking my opinion. I hope my response helps out.

- Andrew

Conclusion: Council members argued that making the town's association with Washington Irving and his famous “legend” more obvious would increase tourism and result immediately in financial benefits for the town's inhabitants. (“result IMMEDIATELY in financial benefits” – is immediately a red flag…)

The council members' argument requires the assumption that

(A) most of the inhabitants would favor a change in the name of the town
Preferences don’t matter. Out of scope.

(B) many inhabitants would be ready to supply tourists with information about Washington Irving and his “legend”
Could be seen as a strengthener, but this doesn’t bridge the gap between changing the name and resulting in immediate financial benefits.

(C) the town can accomplish, at a very low cost per capita, the improvements in tourist facilities that an increase in tourism would require
But would this result in immediate financial benefits? This could almost weaken. Even if it’s at a “very low cost,” it’s still a cost. What if there isn’t ANY increase in tourism.

(D) other towns in the region have changed their names to reflect historical associations and have, as a result, experienced a rise in tourism
Out of scope – we don’t care about the comparison between other towns. This option seems to come up frequently in incorrect choices.

(E) the immediate per capita cost to inhabitants of changing the name of the town would be less than the immediate per capita revenue they would receive from the change
This is it. This bridges the gap between changing name and immediate $$. How do we know that we could gain immediate $$? Because the initial $ is LESS than the $ that would be received from the change.