A reason Larson cannot do the assignment is that she has an unavoidabl

Question

A reason Larson cannot do the assignment is that she has an unavoidable scheduling conflict. On the other hand, a reason Franks cannot do the assignment is that he does not quite have the assertiveness the task requires. So, the task must be assigned to Parker, the only supervisor in the shipping department other than Larson and Franks.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?

(A) Larson has the assertiveness the task requires.

(B) The task cannot be assigned to anyone other than a supervisor in the shipping department.

(C) Franks would be assigned the task if Franks had the assertiveness the task requires.

(D) The task cannot be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict.

(E) No one who is not a supervisor in the shipping department has the assertiveness this task requires.

KarishmaB · Accepted Answer

Argument: 
Larson cannot do the assignment.
Franks cannot do the assignment.
Parker is the only other supervisor in the shipping department.

Conclusion: Parker must do it.

(B) is the correct assumption - The task cannot be assigned to anyone other than a supervisor in the shipping department. We are certainly assuming that since Parker is the only other supervisor, he must do the assignment. Only a supervisor in shipping dept can do the assignment.

(D) The task cannot be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict. 
This is not correct. Anyway, it says 'any kind of scheduling conflict' while the premises mentioned that Larson has 'unavoidable scheduling conflicts'. This implies there might be some scheduling conflicts which can be readjusted/avoided etc. 
Even if the option had said "The task cannot be assigned to anyone who has an unavoidable scheduling conflict.", it would still not be an assumption because it is already given in the argument. So it is not a missing premise and hence not an assumption.

Answer (B)

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM POWER PREP

The argument presents two premises followed by a sentence that contains both a conclusion and another premise:

Premise 1: Larson cannot do the assignment because of an unavoidable scheduling conflict.

Premise 2: Franks cannot do the assignment because he is not assertive enough for the task.

Premise 3: Parker is the only supervisor in the shipping department other than Larson and Franks.

Conclusion: Parker must be assigned to the task.

When considering an argument, you should always be on the lookout for new terms that appear in only one premise or only in the conclusion. In this stimulus, the phrase “supervisor in the shipping department” appears in the last sentence. The use of this phrase is significant since it limits the group under discussion and indicates that the author is only considering shipping department supervisors for the position. This detail, of course, is reflected in the correct answer choice.

From another angle, the argument concludes that it is necessary to assign Parker to the task (the use of the term “must” indicates that the author believes that Parker is the only solution). Generally, such conclusions are vulnerable to attack by offering alternate solutions, and you should proceed to the question after making that analysis. If this were a Weaken question, you would look for answer that indicated that someone other than Parker could be assigned to the task. However, this is an Assumption question, so you should look for a choice that helps establish that alternate solutions do not exist, and that indeed Parker must be assigned to the task.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice tests to see whether you will assume that a mere possibility is an absolute certainty. The premise about Larson states that “a” reason Larson cannot be assigned to the task is the unavoidable scheduling conflict, and the use of “a” leaves open the possibility that other reasons also establish that Larson cannot do the assignment (the use of “the” would have been limiting, but the use of “a” is not). So, it is possible that there were other reasons that Larson could not do the assignment, but it is also possible there were no other reasons. Consequently, although Larson may have the assertiveness the task requires, the author has not assumed that she does, and this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.  This answer addresses the use of the phrase supervisor in the  shipping department  in the stimulus, and reflects the assumption made by the author that only supervisors from the shipping department can be assigned to the task. Remember, the author stated that there were only three supervisors in the shipping department, and since two of the supervisors could not be assigned to the task that therefore the third supervisor must be assigned to the task. This is a logical conclusion only if the author believes that a shipping department supervisor must be the person assigned to the task.

To double-check the validity of this answer choice, use the Assumption Negation Technique. Using the Technique, the negated answer becomes, “The task can be assigned to someone other than a supervisor in the shipping department.” If the task  can  be assigned to non-supervisors, or to people who are not in the shipping department, the conclusion in the argument is severely weakened. Because the negated answer would clearly undermine the conclusion, this answer is confirmed as correct.

Answer choice (C): Although we know that Franks cannot be used for the task because he lacks assertiveness, we do not know that if he had the required assertiveness that he would be assigned the task. Similar to the reasoning used to discount answer choice (A), the premise about Franks states that “a” reason Franks cannot be assigned to the task is that he is not quite assertive enough. Thus, it is possible that there were other reasons that Franks could not do the assignment. Consequently, even if Franks had the assertiveness the task requires, the author has not assumed that he would be used for the task.

Answer choice (D): This choice is too broad because it addresses “any” conflict. The reason Larson could not do the assignment was that she had an  unavoidable  scheduling conflict, and so the author has not assumed that  any  scheduling conflict is problematic, just an  unavoidable  one (for example, perhaps Parker has a scheduling conflict, but it can be resolved prior to the start of the task). Since the author has not assumed that all scheduling conflicts preclude the assignment of the task, this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E): This answer choice contains the following conditional relationship:

Assertive enough --> Supervisor in shipping department

Has the author assumed that everyone who is assertive enough for the task is a supervisor in the shipping department? No, because the author has limited the candidates to the shipping department there could be other people who are assertive enough for the task, but they would not be qualified since they are not supervisors in the shipping department.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

This is an obviously bad argument with a surprisingly difficult set of answer choices. The key here, as always, is to predict the answer before even getting to the answer choices, so that you don’t get trapped by a nearly-right answer.

The argument is bullshit because it leaps from “Larson cannot do it” and “Franks cannot do it” to “Therefore Parker, the only other supervisor in the shipping department, must do it.” The proper objection to this line of reasoning is, “Wait… who said a supervisor in the shipping department has to do it?!” Ideally, you’ll have said this before you even read the part that asks you to identify an assumption. Once you see that you’re looking for an assumption, you’ll convert your objection into an accusation: “ You’ve assumed  that the job can only be done by a supervisor in the shipping department!” And then you’ll go find that in the answer choices, and be done with it.

Unfortunately, if you weren’t able to do that, then there are a couple of tricky answer choices that might be difficult to avoid. Let’s see:

A) The argument concludes that Larson should not do the assignment due to scheduling. But that's just "a reason"... lack of assertiveness may or may not be another reason.

B) Yep, this matches our prediction. If this statement is untrue, then it is possible to assign the task to someone other than a supervisor in the shipping department. And if that’s true, then why would Parker be the only man for the job? This answer, if untrue, totally destroys the argument. That’s the hallmark of an assumption that the argument  depends on .

C) The author suggested this, but it’s not  necessarily  true. Lack of assertiveness might be the least of the author’s worries about Franks… he could also be a perv and a psychopath. If Franks were a perv and a psychopath, that wouldn’t in any way harm the author’s suggestion that Parker is the man for the job. So this statement isn’t required by the argument.

D) This is  suggested  but not required. It’s possible that Parker does have some scheduling conflicts, but he’s going to get the job anyway because Franks and Larson have even worse conflicts and/or are perverts and psychopaths and arsonists. Parker can have some scheduling conflicts and still be the best man for the job. This statement isn’t required.

E) Nah. I’m sure plenty of people outside the department, or outside the company, or outside the USA, have plenty of assertiveness. Who cares? That wouldn’t change the argument in favor of Parker. All those other folks are simply irrelevant.

Our answer is B, because it’s the only necessary assumption listed.

gmatprav · Answer

I went with E, I am shocked with the OA. My reasoning is as below:

Conclusion:  So, the task must be assigned to Parker, the only supervisor in the shipping department other than Larson and Franks.

Premise 1: Someone with  unavoidable scheduling conflict  cannot be assigned this task. 
Premise 2: The assignee must be assertive.

Conclusion: The only remaining supervisor must be assigned the task.

So what is the underlying assumption?

Only the supervisors are assertive and no one else is... which is stated in E. Where as the OA talks about ANY scheduling conflict, whereas the argument is clearly saying Larson has UNAVOIDABLE scheduling conflict. so how come OA is D??

(A) Larson has the assertiveness the task requires. 
 While this can be inferred from the argument, this is not an assumption. 
(B) The task cannot be assigned to anyone other than a supervisor in the shipping department. 
 This also seems an inference than an assumption, hence eliminate. 
(C) Franks would be assigned the task if Franks had the assertiveness the task requires. 
 This is obvious and not an assumption,  
(D) The task cannot be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict. 
 ANY kind of scheduling conflict is stretching the info given in the argument. hence incorrect 
(E) No one who is not a supervisor in the shipping department has the assertiveness this task requires.
 The only remaining choice and also a good assumption that only supervisors have the assertiveness for the task. Correct

KarishmaB · Answer

There are some issues here:

(A) Larson has the assertiveness the task requires. 
 While this can be inferred from the argument, this is not an assumption. 
This cannot be inferred from the argument. The argument says 'A reason Larson cannot is unavoidable scheduling conflict...' There could be other reasons she cannot do the assignment and one of them could be that she doesn't have the assertiveness.

(B) The task cannot be assigned to anyone other than a supervisor in the shipping department. 
 This also seems an inference than an assumption, hence eliminate. 
We are assuming this.

From:
Larson cannot do the assignment.
Franks cannot do the assignment.
Parker is the only other supervisor in the shipping department.

You jumped to: Parker must do it.
This means we are assuming that only a supervisor from shipping dept must do it.

(C) Franks would be assigned the task if Franks had the assertiveness the task requires. 
 This is obvious and not an assumption,  
Again, the argument says 'A reason Franks cannot do is lack of assertiveness'. There could be other reasons too. Also, even if Frank had the assertiveness, the assignment could still be given to Parker.

(D) The task cannot be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict. 
 ANY kind of scheduling conflict is stretching the info given in the argument. hence incorrect

(E) No one who is not a supervisor in the shipping department has the assertiveness this task requires.
 The only remaining choice and also a good assumption that only supervisors have the assertiveness for the task. Correct 
Not true. It is possible that people who are not supervisors in shipping dept are not allowed to do this assignment/don't have the required skills/have scheduling problems etc. The reason others are not allowed could be anything. We cannot assume that no one else has the required assertiveness.

mba1382 · Answer

Thanks a lot for your input. Really helped. Honestly, I considered B best among worst looking at the premises and conclusion. Finally only when I applied negation,I got the correct answer.

In case of assumption questions, we can have so many assumptions but is it like the correct assumption need only attack the assumption or say fill the gap between premises,  though not completely ?

Because, for me,  one of the the possible assumptions  : Task could be assigned to a supervisor with no unavoidable scheduling conflict and assertiveness required for the task.

Please help me understand. Thanks.

KarishmaB · Answer

Assumption - A missing necessary premise. This post discusses each one of these words in detail - missing - necessary - premise: https://www.gmatclub.com/forum/veritas-prep-resource-links-no-longer-available-399979.html#/2013/03 ... sumptions/ Check it out. An assumption must fill a gap that is required but it may not fill it completely. Look at the breakdown of the argument: Argument: Larson cannot do the assignment. Franks cannot do the assignment. Parker is the only other supervisor in the shipping department. Conclusion: Parker must do it. Does the conclusion follow from the given premises? No. A number of issues have not been dealt with. What about now? Argument: Larson cannot do the assignment. Franks cannot do the assignment. Parker is the only other supervisor in the shipping department. Only a supervisor from the shipping department can do the assignment. Parker has no scheduling conflict and has all the required skills. Conclusion: Parker must do it. Now is it a much tighter argument (though it may not be perfect)? Does your conclusion follow more naturally from the premises now? There could be many assumptions for a conclusion to be true. We need to find one of them (the given options will have only one assumption). It must be an assumption i.e. it must be true for the conclusion to hold. If we find that a supervisor from another department can do the assignment, then 'Parker must do it' becomes false. It's not necessary that he MUST do it. Someone else can also do it.

moulindu · Answer

Question said Parker is the only supervisor in the shipping department not  only other 
So if Parker is only supervisor then B is not correct

Nightmare007 · Answer

I can See both B and E are contenders and Can't Eliminate both.
D is definitely wrong because it is saying ANY kind of scheduling conflict.
Tried using Negating technique Both B and E destroy the conclusion .
please need help regarding this question.
If the post solves my dilemma +kudos guarantee .

thank you.

KarishmaB · Answer

For anyone who has the same doubt, the argument says: So, the task must be assigned to Parker, the only supervisor in the shipping department  other than Larson and Franks

So Parker is the only other supervisor (other than Larson and Franks).

KarishmaB · Answer

(E) is not correct.

(E) No one who is not a supervisor in the shipping department has the assertiveness this task requires.

We don't need to assume anything about the capabilities of people who are not supervisors in the shipping department. The argument says that the task must be assigned to Parker, the only other supervisor in shipping dept. So we are assuming that the person who does this job must be a supervisor in the shipping dept. The reasons a supervisor of shipping dept is needed could be many others too such as the designation, experience etc. It may not be only because of the requirement of assertiveness. It doesn't mean that anyone who has assertiveness is fit for the task. Assertiveness is not the only requirement. So we don't need to assume that no non-supervisor is fit for the task because he/she doesn't have the required assertiveness.

Samé · Answer

Answer B is the only one that follows logically with the conclusion of the argument.

VerbalBot · Answer

Automated notice from GMAT Club VerbalBot: 

A member just gave Kudos to this thread, showing it’s still useful. I’ve bumped it to the top so more people can benefit. Feel free to add your own questions or solutions.

 This post was generated automatically.

A reason Larson cannot do the assignment is that she has an unavoidabl

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

A reason Larson cannot do the assignment is that she has an unavoidabl

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