JohnGalt1
An investment account may hold money in a variety of forms, including stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or currently uninvested cash reserves. Recent allegations, of insider trading within the pharmaceutical industry have prompted rumors of a market-wide sell-off as those holding stock in non-related industries react negatively to the news. Evidence suggests, however, that there has been no such sell-of, because financial records reveal no unusual increase in the total uninvested cash reserves of investment accounts since the allegations were made public.
The argument relies on which one of the following assumptions?
A) People who held stock in industries unrelated to pharmaceuticals purchased low-priced pharmaceutical stock at unusually highly rates in response to the news.
B) Those who sold their pharmaceuticals stocks and purchased new stocks tended to choose cheaper stocks and buy fewer shares
C) Those holding non-pharmaceutical stocks are skeptical about the possibility of those stocks' values increasing in the near future.
D) Data has not yet been released as to the total volume of trading since the allegations were made public.
E) People who hold stock in industries unrelated to pharmaceuticals are not transferring their money into less risky investments such as bonds and mutual funds.
An account may hold money in a variety of forms - stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or currently uninvested cash reserves.
Some allegations have prompted rumors of a market-wide sell-off of stocks.
Financial records reveal no unusual increase in the total uninvested cash reserves of accounts.
Conclusion: There has been no such sell-off
So an account holds stocks and other financial products. Some uninvested cash is also there (cash that people keep so that they can quickly invest if some opportunity comes in. If people sell off then they get cash which is added to the cash reserve. They can invest again using this cash.)
There was a rumour of market-wide stock sell off. But cash reserves have not increased. Hence the argument is concluding that there has been no sell-off.
That is not necessary. What if people did sell off the stocks but invested in bonds instead which are safer? Then there may have been a sell off and still the cash reserve would not have shown any substantial increase.
So which is an assumption to conclude that sell off did not happen?
E) People who hold stock in industries unrelated to pharmaceuticals are not transferring their money into less risky investments such as bonds and mutual funds.
We are assuming that people are not transferring their money into bonds to say that sell off did not happen. Hence, this is a valid assumption.
AkhilAggarwal - Hope this is clear. Also note that even if there were a decrease in the cash reserve, that does not invalidate the premise that "there was no increase". It stays true that there was no increase.