I actually think the question has some merit and is testing one’s ability to pay close attention to the modifier words in a given answer choice.
Conclusion made: if we charge $1 toll each day, we will raise enough money to pay for the estimated $30 million in bridge repairs within 1 month (~30 days)
Supporting evidence that the author uses to advance the conclusion: “Over 1 million drivers use the bridge each day.”
You can see where the mind of the author is heading. The author believes that these 1 million ppl who drive each day will pay the $1 a day and we will get our $30 million within approximately 30 days.
(E) “MOST of the residents of Brookline and Kings use the bridge to commute to work each day.”
In order for the facts to support the author’s claim, must he assume that MOST of the RESIDENTS of the 2 cities use the bridge for the specific purpose of commuting to work each day?
All we are told is that 1 million people use the bridge each day.
-if there are 50 million residents of these cities and 1 million continue to use the bridge, the argument still stands. The author does not need to assume that “most” of these residents will use the bridge. Only that the 1 million mentioned will CONTINUE to use the bridge and actually pay the toll.
There are a couple of other details that stick out about answer choice E. For instance, must the author assume that the commuters are from these particular 2 cities, or does the argument still stand if any 1 million drivers cross the bridge? As long as ANY 1 million people continue to use the bridge and pay the toll, the facts still support the argument.
E is not a required assumption.
(B)”The toll will not cause a significant hardship on the commuters who use the bridge.”
If this answer choice were true, then it might be an answer choice that slightly weakens the conclusion that the money will be raised within a month.
Put another way, the answer might make it slightly more likely that the 1 million drivers will continue to use the bridge and pay the toll.
But even if the toll DOES cause a significant hardship on the drivers, this does not necessarily mean that the 1 million drivers will stop using the bridge such that the toll money will not be collected.
Perhaps this bridge is the only avenue available. We do not know.
This answer choice also presents the danger of relying on the Negation Technique too much.
When negated, the answer choice does make it less likely that the drivers will continue to use the road. This in turn makes it a little less likely that the plan will work as advertised.
However, the question we need to ask is the following: is it REQUIRED that the author assume that the bridge not cause significant hardships in order for his argument to be valid, I.e., for his plan to work?
The answer is no. Given the supporting facts, the author need only assume that the 1 million drivers will continue to use the road each day and will actually pay the toll so that the money is raised within a month. The author does not need to assume anything about what hardships these drivers may suffer.
B is not a required assumption.
C is the only required assumption. In order for the plan to work and the money to be raised within the 1 month period, the 1 million drivers must continue to use the bridge and pay the toll. If the drivers were to use mass transit instead, then the facts no longer support the conclusion.
The author must assume that the 1 million drivers who use the bridge each day will continue to use the bridge each day and pay the toll. Otherwise, the entire argument falls apart.
C
Posted from my mobile device