In Wakanda, the amount of vibranium retrieved every year is just large

Question

In Wakanda, the amount of vibranium retrieved every year is just large enough to satisfy the demand of its national weapons industry. Wakanda's mining productivity will not increase in the foreseeable future, nor will new vibranium mines be discovered. Wakanda's weapons industry, however, will be increasingly significant as new companies enter the market. Clearly, Wakanda will soon need to import vibranium.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) No new technologies to economize vibranium will be implemented by weapon manufacturers in Wakanda.
(B) Not all vibranium currently mined-out in Wakanda is of industrial grade.
(C) None of the vibranium mines in Wakanda are exceptionally high-yielding.
(D) There are no other industries in Wakanda that will not increase.
(E) There are no other major metals in Wakanda for which the supply and demand are currently in balance.

Liberty Test Prep https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA2WIIjJnLg

chandy123 · Answer

To determine which option best represents an assumption underlying the argument, let’s first break down the argument’s structure:

Argument Summary:
 1. Current Situation:
 • Supply: Wakanda retrieves just enough vibranium each year to meet the demand of its national weapons industry.
 • Supply Constraints:
 • Mining productivity will not increase in the foreseeable future.
 • No new vibranium mines will be discovered.
 2. Future Projections:
 • Demand: Wakanda’s weapons industry will become increasingly significant as new companies enter the market.
 3. Conclusion:
 • Implication: Wakanda will soon need to import vibranium to meet the growing demand.

Identifying the Assumption:

An assumption is an unstated premise that must be true for the argument to hold. In this case, the argument hinges on the relationship between constant supply and increasing demand leading to the necessity of imports.

Let’s evaluate each option to see which one is essential for the argument:
 • Option A: No new technologies to economize vibranium will be implemented by weapon manufacturers in Wakanda.
Analysis:
 • Relevance: If weapon manufacturers develop technologies to use vibranium more efficiently, the demand for vibranium may not increase as significantly. This would undermine the conclusion that imports are necessary.
 • Necessity: For the argument to hold, it must be assumed that no such technological advancements will occur. Otherwise, the increased demand might be offset by decreased usage per unit of weaponry.
 • Option B: Not all vibranium currently mined in Wakanda is of industrial grade.
Analysis:
 • Relevance: This relates to the quality of vibranium but doesn’t directly impact the supply-demand dynamic discussed in the argument.
 • Option C: None of the vibranium mines in Wakanda are exceptionally high-yielding.
Analysis:
 • Relevance: The argument already states that mining productivity won’t increase, making this option somewhat redundant and not directly addressing the core assumption about demand.
 • Option D: There are no other industries in Wakanda that will not increase.
Analysis:
 • Relevance: This option is ambiguously worded and doesn’t directly tie into the vibranium supply-demand scenario presented.
 • Option E: There are no other major metals in Wakanda for which the supply and demand are currently in balance.
Analysis:
 • Relevance: This introduces a new variable unrelated to vibranium’s specific supply and demand dynamics.

Conclusion:

Option A is the most critical assumption for the argument. It directly addresses a factor that could influence the demand for vibranium. If weapon manufacturers were to implement technologies that reduce vibranium usage, the anticipated increase in demand (and thus the need for imports) might not materialize.

Answer:

A. No new technologies to economize vibranium will be implemented by weapon manufacturers in Wakanda.

Anandanwar · Answer

Hello,

Argument already says mining productivity will not increase.
So A is already said in the argument.

I did select A, but only because it is the only one close.
But it does not seem to add anything to the passage.

Should A be an assumption?
Regards,
Ankit

guddo · Answer

The point is that (A) is  not already stated  in the argument.

“Mining productivity will not increase” means Wakanda will not retrieve more vibranium.

(A) is different: it says weapon makers will not use less vibranium per weapon because of new technology.

That matters because even if supply stays the same, demand could still be met if manufacturers become more efficient. So (A) adds a necessary missing condition about  demand , not supply.

egmat · Answer

Hi Anandanwar,

Good instinct to be suspicious, but A is actually pointing at a  different lever  than the premise you're thinking of.

Look at the two statements side by side:

- The premise says:  "Wakanda's mining productivity will not increase"  - this is about the  supply  side, how much vibranium gets  pulled out of the ground .
- Choice A says:  "No new technologies to economize vibranium will be implemented by weapon manufacturers"  - this is about the  demand/usage  side, how much vibranium gets  consumed per weapon .

So A is not repeating the mining premise at all. Even with mining frozen, the conclusion ("will soon need to import") only holds if the  rising number of companies  actually pushes total consumption past the fixed supply. If manufacturers get more efficient - using less vibranium per weapon - the extra companies could be absorbed without any import.

Run the negation test  to feel why it's required:

- Negate A: "Manufacturers  do  adopt economizing technology." Now more companies can share the same fixed supply, and Wakanda might  not  need to import - the conclusion collapses.
- Since negating A breaks the argument, A is a genuine assumption the argument leans on.

That's the tell for an assumption: it doesn't have to add  new visible information  - it just has to be something that, if false, sinks the conclusion. It can feel "obvious" and still be load-bearing.

Quick parallel to lock it in:  "A bakery's flour deliveries are fixed, but more cooks are joining, so it will soon run short." The supply (deliveries) is fixed - that's stated. The hidden assumption is that  the cooks won't start baking with less flour per loaf . Same two levers: supply frozen vs. usage-per-unit. That efficiency gap is exactly what A guards.

Answer: A

agil31 · Answer

In option A, what exactly does economize vibranium mean? as per the answers, it seems to be inferred as using vibranium more efficiently, but doesn't economize really mean make the element cheaper?

KarishmaB · Answer

It means to use it frugally, to save. So economizing vibranium means to use less of it.

In Wakanda, the amount of vibranium retrieved every year is just large

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

In Wakanda, the amount of vibranium retrieved every year is just large

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