To prevent some conflicts of interest, Congress could prohibit high-le

Question

To prevent some conflicts of interest, Congress could prohibit high-level government officials from accepting positions as lobbyists for three years after such officials leave government service. One such official concluded, however, that such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.

The official’s conclusion logically depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Laws should not restrict the behavior of former government officials.

(B) Lobbyists are typically people who have previously been high-level government officials.

(C) Low-level government officials do not often become lobbyists when they leave government service.

(D) High-level government officials who leave government service are capable of earning a livelihood only as lobbyists.

(E) High-level government officials who leave government service are currently permitted to act as lobbyists for only three years.

whiplash2411 · Accepted Answer

I think the answer is D.

The first statement proposes this idea: High level government officials can't take up jobs as lobbyists for three years after leaving the service.

Counter argument: This would render them jobless.

So if you put these two statements together, what do you think the meaning conveyed is? The fact that prevention of these high level officials from taking up a lobbyist position for three years would render them jobless.

What is the underlying tone saying? That they don't have any other livelihood source.

Now look at the options:

A. This is not even directly related to the statement -  Wrong 
B. This is partially true and can be confusing, but by saying lobbyists were previously high level officials, it's not really saying that all high level officials were only lobbyists. They might have had other opportunities. -  Wrong 
C. Talking about low level officials doesn't prove anything to us since our argument is based on what these high level officials do or don't do once they leave the government -  Wrong 
D. This is the most relevant answer. It says high level officials can only become lobbyists after leaving the service. The argument in question says the new rule will render these officials jobless. It matches up. -  Correct  (But let's look at the last option just in case)
E. This doesn't make any logical sense either. If they're only permitted to act as lobbyists for three years, what's the point of bringing the new rule? In either case, this doesn't serve to be the assumption for the argument the official proposed. -  Wrong

Hope this helps.

abhimahna · Answer

Conclusion : Such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.

=> It assumes that being a lobbyists is the  ONLY  way to earn a livelihood.

Negation Technique for Choice D :

Lets say we say High-level government officials who leave government service are capable of earning a livelihood in some other way as well. This would mean official conclusion is shattered as there is some other way to earn the livelihood. Hence, if negating a statement shatters the conclusion, it is the Best choice for the assumption. Hence answer is D.

Hussain15 · Answer

IMO "D".

If the conclusion is that P leads to C , then the assumption will be that C cant be achieved throuh any other mean.

So the conclusion in our problem that high level officials will be prevented from earning a livelihood for 3 years, our assumption will be that there is no other mean to earn a livelihood (for a gov official) other than being a lobbyist. Hence "D".

amp0201 · Answer

A. Laws should not restrict the behavior of former government officials.
 --This piece of information is not supporting the conclusion. The argument is not about the behavior of the government officials. Hence A cannot be correct answer choice.

B. Lobbyists are typically people who have previously been high-level government officials.
 -- This has been already stated in premise. It cannot be an assumption. Hence B is not a correct answer choice.

C. Low-level government officials do not often become lobbyists when they leave government service.
 --Discussion is about high-level officials. This piece of information is irrelevant to the author's conclusion. Hence C cannot be correct answer choice.

D. High-level government officials who leave government service are capable of earning a livelihood only as lobbyists.
 --If this piece of information is true, then and then only author will be able to reach to his conclusion. Hence D is a correct answer choice.

One such official concluded, however,   since high-level officials who leave government service are capable of earning a livelihood only as lobbyists,    such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.

E. High-level government officials who leave government service are currently permitted to act as lobbyists for only three years. 
 --This information is stated in premise. Hence it cannot be an assumption. Hence E is a not a correct answer choice.

Please let us the know the OA. Thank You.

Thanks,
Akhil M.Parekh

praveenism · Answer

IMO D

@xmagedo : You can easily check it out by negating the options. Once you negate option D. i.e lobbying is not the only source of livelihood for High Govt Officials, the argument falls apart. I hope, it helps. @Akhil: Once again, nice and descriptive explanation by you. Well Done !!

xmagedo · Answer

thanks for the help guys
but IS there anyway I can find out the answer without writing the argument on a rugh paper?

paidlukkha · Answer

can someone help me solve this via the Negation technique?

uchihaitachi · Answer

Suppose, you have worked as a marketing manager for a long time, after leaving the job you have various options but what if you can only do one job. And if government restricts that you will lose all source of income.
This argument talks exactly about that, what if high level government officials can only work as lobbyists. Without that it will be hard for them to make a living.

Option D perfectly captures that.

AkankshaGMAT1989 · Answer

In this question, I rejected D because of the extreme wording of "Only". My negation pre-thought answer matched exactly this. In what situations, are we okay with only/ Most type wordings, if at all?

jaisonsunny77 · Answer

Type: Find the assumption
 
 Conclusion: prohibition (of high-level government officials from accepting positions as lobbyists for three years after such officials leave government service) = prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.
  
(A) Laws should not restrict the behavior of former government officials.  -  does not help establish the conclusion. 
  
(B) Lobbyists are typically people who have previously been high-level government officials.  -  (B) describes who lobbyists are. Such a description does not help establish the conclusion.  
 
(C) Low-level government officials do not often become lobbyists when they leave government service.  -  the passage is not concerned with ''low-level'' government officials.

(D) High-level government officials who leave government service are capable of earning a livelihood only as lobbyists. - if this were not true, then it would imply that the prohibition does not affect the livelihood of these government officials. But, if (D) were true, then it certainly would imply that these government officials would have no other means to earn a livelihood for 3 years other than working as lobbyists. Therefore, (D) is necessary to assume in order to establish the conclusion. Hence,   (D) is the right answer choice.   
 
(E) High-level government officials who leave government service are currently permitted to act as lobbyists for only three years.  -  (E) describes for how long such officials are permitted to work as lobbyists. (E) does not help establish the conclusion.

mba757 · Answer

Conclusion : “such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level gov’t officials from earning a livelihood for three years” – this is a huge logical leap. Is this really the only way they can make a livelihood?

The official’s conclusion logically depends on which of the following assumptions?
 
 (A) Laws should not restrict the behavior of former government officials.
 Scope creep. Keep in mind: the word “should” is usually an indicator of reaching beyond what must be true. Why should laws do this? We’re not concerned with what laws should or should not do.

(B) Lobbyists are typically people who have previously been high-level government officials.
 Story trap. Doesn’t have to be true. Yeah, they could typically have been. But how does this affect the conclusion on the livelihood of the gov’t officials? It doesn’t.

(C) Low-level government officials do not often become lobbyists when they leave government service.
 Scope creep. Not concerned with low level and what they do after the gov’t. This distinction is out of scope. We’re concerned about the high-level gov’t officials potentially not being able to earn a livelihood for three years. Stay focused!

(D) High-level government officials who leave government service are capable of earning a livelihood only as lobbyists.
 Money. So this bridges the gap. If being a lobbyist is the ONLY way they earn a livelihood, it would make sense why this dude is concerned and saying it’s unfortunate because “it would prevent” them from earning a livelihood for three years  .

(E) High-level government officials who leave government service are currently permitted to act as lobbyists for only three years.
 This is almost the opposite, if anything. At worst, we don’t care at all because this is currently what’s happening and the decisions by congress will only affect the future. At best, it’s the opposite. They can make a livelihood during this time, devoiding the whole conclusion. The prohibition would thus not be unfortunate because there is no prevention.

ayeshakhosla1718 · Answer

To prevent some conflicts of interest, Congress could prohibit high-level government officials from accepting positions as lobbyists for three years after such officials leave government service. One such official concluded, however, that such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.

p1'; congress could prohibit high-level government officials from accepting positions as lobbyists for three years after such officials leave government service
p2: that such a prohibition would be unfortunate because it would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.

premise 1 says that govt professions should be stopped from accepting positions as lobbyists after 3 years of leaving the govt service. premise 2 further develops on this point and says that it would prevent officials from earning a livelihood. So the author assumes that lobbying is the only form of livelihood that govt officials could use after their service is over.

The official’s conclusion logically depends on which of the following assumptions?

(A) Laws should not restrict the behavior of former government officials.

(B) Lobbyists are typically people who have previously been high-level government officials.

(C)  Low-level government officials do not often become lobbyists when they leave government service.  this sentence is similar to the assumption figured above.

(D) High-level government officials who leave government service are capable of earning a livelihood only as lobbyists.

(E) High-level government officials who leave government service are currently permitted to act as lobbyists for only three years.

Abhishek009 · Answer

(A) It is a judgement, can not be an assumption.
(B) Can not be true in 100% of the cases, however some lobyists can be previously high level govt officials.
(C) Out of scope , we are no way concerned about low level govt officials.
(E) act as lobbyists for only three years - Out of scope, we are not concerned about it.

(D) negate this statement " High-level government officials who leave government service are  not  capable of earning a livelihood only as lobbyists." , the entire argument falls apart, hence IMHO correct answer must be (D)

stackskillz · Answer

This is the solution I came up with:

Conc: Prohibition would prevent high-level government officials from earning a livelihood for three years.

(A)  Laws should not restrict the behavior of former government officials -  TBH Looks like a conclusion the govt. official would favor. Our ask is to find the assumption integral to the statement "Prohibitiion would prevent high-level govt. officials from earning the livelihood".  Drop.

(B)  Lobbyists are typically people who have previously been high-level government officials  - Probably another fair conclusion IRL. However, not integral for our conclusion.  Drop

(C)  Low-level government officials do not often become lobbyists when they leave government service.  - This seems to be completely out of the left-field -Low-level govt. officials. Have we been told by anyone about them and their prospects. Nope.....  Drop

(D)  High-level government officials who leave government service are capable of earning a livelihood only as lobbyists  - This seems to be integral to the conclusion. If they can't earn livelihood anyother way, then what the govt. official said makes sense.  Keep

(E)  High-level government officials who leave government service are currently permitted to act as lobbyists for only three years.  - Completely opposite of the passage. No need to think.  Drop

VerbalBot · Answer

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.

To prevent some conflicts of interest, Congress could prohibit high-le

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

To prevent some conflicts of interest, Congress could prohibit high-le

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