International Policy Adviser: People over the age of 65 are

Question

International Policy Adviser: People over the age of 65 are underrepresented in the government of Country X. Because the government sets the country's policy priorities and passes new laws, the underrepresentation of people over the age of 65 results in a significant lack of consideration for issues important to this age group, such as pensions, age-related welfare, and employment discrimination; only an increase in the number of government officials will solve the problem.

Which of the following best describes an assumption implicit to the international policy adviser's argument?

Which of the following best describes an assumption implicit to the international policy adviser's argument?

(A) A significant increase in the size of Country X's government would be required in order to increase the representation of people over the age of 65 in the government.
(B) A significant increase in the representation of people over the age of 65 in Country X's government would result in an increase in the consideration for issues affecting people in this age group.
(C) A significant increase in funding toward educating the government about issues affecting people over age 65 would result in more serious consideration for issues affecting people in this age group.
(D) A significant increase in funding for adult education targeted to people over age 65 would result in an increase in the number of such people in Country X's government.
(E) A significant increase in the representation of people over the age of 65 in Country X's government would have to precede any increase in the number of high-ranking government officials who are over the age of 65.

sayantanc2k · Accepted Answer

Premise: X (underrepresentation) causes Y (lack in consideration). This statement is not same as saying removal of X will result in Y not happening. (there could be other factors whose presence or absence may still be causing Y, even after removal of the cause X).

Hence the statement that removal of X will result in Y not happening must be explicitly assumed in order to arrive at the conclusion.

nverma · Answer

ramana · Answer

Straight B.

when you negate B, argument is weakened.

sushma0805 · Answer

"only an increase in the number of government officials will solve the problem"...
i was closing the loop hole in this conclusion, and marked ans A and thought B is already stated in the argument.

thanks !!

Senthil1981 · Answer

Answer is (B) A significant increase in the representation of people over the age of 65 in Country X's government would result in an increase in the consideration for issues affecting people in this age group.

Since people over the age of 65 are underrepresented in the government, their issues are not resolved. So only C provides option to resolve this.

manhasnoname · Answer

Isn't B already stated in the question stem?

"the underrepresentation of people over the age of 65 results in a significant lack of consideration for issues important to this age group"

How can it be the assumption? Isn't assumption an unstated evidence?

Please help!!!

Ummah Relief International · Answer

obvious its B no doubt. They are making policies without any consideration for anyone.

shivakmr · Answer

Premise : significant underrepresented population aged over 65 leading to lack of considering issues faced by them.
Conclusion: increase in number of government officials will solve the problem.
Assumption:increase in representation leads to consideration of the issues faced by them (solution)

aaba · Answer

since the source is not clear, but the question has been bookmarked many times, I think the question is correct.
(A) A significant increase in the size of Country X's government would be required in order to increase the representation of people over the age of 65 in the government. -> A only concerns the requirement of the increase of the representation.
(B) A significant increase in the representation of people over the age of 65 in Country X's government would result in an increase in the consideration for issues affecting people in this age group. -> causal effect and relationship
(C) A significant increase in  funding toward educating the government  about issues affecting people over age 65 would result in more serious consideration for issues affecting people in this age group.
(D) A significant increase in  funding for adult education  targeted to people over age 65 would result in an increase in the number of such people in Country X's government.
(E) A significant increase in the representation of people over the age of 65 in Country X's government would  have to precede any increase in the number of high-ranking government officials  who are over the age of 65.

Sateni7628 · Answer

Premise: There are less number of people in the government of country X who are over the age of 65. This causes significant lack of consideration for issues important to this age group

Conclusion: Only an increase in the number of government officials will solve the problem.

Looking to fill the bridge between premise and conclusion, one can assume that increase in number of people over age 65 in the government would actually result in increase in the consideration of issues for this age group. Otherwise the conclusion, falls apart. Hence choice B is right.

KUDOs please

Bombsante · Answer

Hello, I am still not clear about the OE for choice B.

People over the age of 65 are underrepresented in the government of Country X. The underrepresentation of people over the age of 65 results in a significant lack of consideration for issues important to this age group; only an increase in the number of government officials will solve the problem.

IMO conclusion is  only an increase in the number of government officials will solve the problem  i.e. the author wants us to believe that  if the number of govt officials will increase the number of people over the age of 65 will also increase in the govt thereby increasing the representation of this age group and hence the consideration for this age group  (second underlined part of the story is an assumption implicit in the argument).

Choices C, D & E can be easily eliminated. However, I am struggling really hard to eliminate choice A. Is it because choice A does not mention anything about the consideration?

Montyyy95 · Answer

GMATNinja   karishma  Why is option B correct ?
There is a GAP on how the increase in Govt size ---->will affect the Lack of consideration for Issues of people >65...
and underpinning the argument is the causal relationship: under representation of people >65 leads to lack of consideration of their ISSUES

How does the increase in representation of Govt officials --> leads to increase in consideration of these issues... closes the gap or why this has to be ASSUMED ?

emcheeks · Answer

I want to second  Bombsante  and  Montyyy95  posts. Could someone explain the gaps between the conclusion   and   i.e. why is A wrong?

Thanks!!

Posted from my mobile device

amangupta96 · Answer

IMO B.

Premise : People over 65 are underrepresented in government because of which government doesn't prioritise the problem faced by the people of this age group while making new laws and policies.
Conclusion : Increase in government officials will solve this problem.
To strengthen the conclusion we need an answer which says there should be an increase in government officials for 65 above age which would increase the representation of this age group within government and hence would prioritise the problem faced by people of this age group. Only B supports this and hence is the answer.

Crytiocanalyst · Answer

(A) A significant increase in the size of Country X's government would be required in order to increase the representation of people over the age of 65 in the government.
Change in the composition might also help rather than increasing the size

(B) A significant increase in the representation of people over the age of 65 in Country X's government would result in an increase in the consideration for issues affecting people in this age group.
This is a valid assumption therefore let us hang on to it

(C) A significant increase in funding toward educating the government about issues affecting people over age 65 would result in more serious consideration for issues affecting people in this age group.
how the funding affects is thoroughly out of context doesn't impact the passage

(D) A significant increase in funding for adult education targeted to people over age 65 would result in an increase in the number of such people in Country X's government.
Similar reasoning as C

(E) A significant increase in the representation of people over the age of 65 in Country X's government would have to precede any increase in the number of high-ranking government officials who are over the age of 65.
Any level increase in representation is fine it need not be high ranking therefore out

Theref/ore IMO B

KaushalKhatri · Answer

Isn't option B directly stated in these lines "only an increase in the number of government officials will solve the problem."

The problem is underrepresentation.

Anandanwar · Answer

Premise: People over the age of 65 are underrepresented in the government of Country X. Because the government sets the country's policy priorities and passes new laws, the underrepresentation of people over the age of 65 results in a significant lack of consideration for issues important to this age group, such as pensions, age-related welfare, and employment discrimination; 
Conclusion: only an increase in the number of government officials will solve the problem.

There are two gaps:
1. conclusion talks about increase of number of government official (not necessarily people of age > 65). So here assumption is 'increase in government officials will lead to increase in number of people (>65 years of age) in the government'.
2. increase in representation is assumed to increase in consideration of the problems.

Choice A: gives the assumption in the point 1.
 After negating Choice A, it means there may be some other way of increasing the representation of people with age >65 in the government. There may be some other way of increasing consideration of old age issues. 
 So the conclusion "ONLY an increase in the number of government officials will solve the problem", breaks down.
Choice B: gives the assumption in the point 2.
 After negating choice B, it means increase in representation would not lead to increase in consideration of problems. This also breaks the conclusion.
 
I am not able to negate Choice Based on this analysis. 
Please explain where I am going wrong.

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.

International Policy Adviser: People over the age of 65 are

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

International Policy Adviser: People over the age of 65 are

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