Country Casa's lakes have been experiencing a constant deterioration

Question

Country Casa's lakes have been experiencing a constant deterioration in water quality due to too many visitors. Therefore, Casa has decided that the best way to save its lakes is by charging an extra fee to users of the lakes.

Which of the following is an assumption underlying the conclusion?

Which of the following is an assumption underlying the conclusion?

A. Changing global temperatures has been shown to be mostly responsible for the lakes' deterioration.

B. It is clear that charging higher fees will not be enough to stop the destruction of the lakes.

C. The level of the lakes in Country Casa has fallen by 20 centimeters per year over the last decade.

D. Camping at the lakes has never been prohibited.

E. Higher fees would actually deter a significant amount of people from visiting the lakes.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

Country Casa's lakes have been experiencing a constant deterioration in water quality due to too many visitors. Therefore, Casa has decided that the best way to save its lakes is by charging an extra fee to users of the lakes.

Which of the following is an assumption underlying the conclusion?

Which of the following is an assumption underlying the conclusion?

A. Changing global temperatures has been shown to be mostly responsible for the lakes' deterioration.

Incorrect.

To solve this Assumption question, first break down the argument. The second sentence includes a conclusion conjunction (therefore) so it's the conclusion, and the first sentence contains the premises since it provides us with hard facts.

Now ask yourself: the author thinks that an extra fee charge will help to stop the lakes' deterioration which has been caused by too many visitors. But what is the missing link? What unfounded connection (assumption) does the author make?

The effect of changing global temperatures is a new premise! It is irrelevant whether this new data supports the conclusion; what you are looking for is the assumption, which should explain how the author drew the conclusion based on the premise which already exists regarding the country's lakes' problems resulting from too many people visiting the lakes.

B. It is clear that charging higher fees will not be enough to stop the destruction of the lakes.

Incorrect.

This answer choice contradicts the conclusion and is a conclusion as well, as can be seen from the words it is clear that. We need to look for an assumption by finding the gap between the premise and the conclusion.

C. The level of the lakes in Country Casa has fallen by 20 centimeters per year over the last decade.

Incorrect.

This answer choice presents a new premise about the falling level of the lakes. It is irrelevant whether this new data supports the conclusion; what you are looking for is the assumption, which should explain how the author drew the conclusion based on the existing premise that overuse of lakes is responsible for their deterioration.

D. Camping at the lakes has never been prohibited.

Incorrect.

Information about the laws regarding the use of lakes is a new premise. It is irrelevant whether this new data supports the conclusion; what you are looking for is the assumption, which should explain how the author drew the conclusion based on the existing premise.

E. Higher fees would actually deter a significant amount of people from visiting the lakes.

This answer choice explains why Casa charged an extra fee to protect the lakes. Why else would it charge an extra fee if the previous one had worked? We are told too that the deterioration has been constant.

ManyataM · Answer

IMO the answer is option E 
Lakes are destorying because too many people visit
Best way to save lakes is to charge high fee
assump: high fee few visitors

Posted from my mobile device

minalgambhir · Answer

CONCLUSION - Charging extra fees from the users is the best way to save the lakes

PRETHINKING -

IN WHAT SCENARIO - Charging extra fees from the users is not the best way to save the lakes

GIVEN THAT - Due to increase in the number of visitors, Casa is experiencing a deterioration in the water quality

FALSIFICATION QUESTION - Charging extra fees may not reduce the number of visitors in the lake

ANSWER CHOICE ANALYSIS-

A) Presents yet another reason of deterioration of water - not acceptable as reason is clearly given - increase in the number of visitors
B) It is actually the negation of assumption
C) Level of lakes doesn't matter
D) Camping at lakes - doesn't clarify the effect on number of visitors
E) CORRECT - Inline with our assumption

ASR2021 · Answer

The best way to identify the assumption is to negate the statements (A to E).

E. Higher fees would  (not)  actually deter a significant amount of people from visiting the lakes.

When you negate the the statements, the argument should not hold its position post negation. It should fall apart.

Using the negation for choice E, the argument clearly falls apart.

E

winterschool · Answer

Country Casa's lakes have been experiencing a constant deterioration in water quality due to too many visitors. Therefore, Casa has decided that the best way to save its lakes is by charging an extra fee to users of the lakes.

Which of the following is an assumption underlying the conclusion?

Which of the following is an assumption underlying the conclusion?

A. Changing global temperatures has been shown to be mostly responsible for the lakes' deterioration.  Incorrect

against argument
 
B. It is clear that charging higher fees will not be enough to stop the destruction of the lakes.  Incorrect

against argument

C. The level of the lakes in Country Casa has fallen by 20 centimeters per year over the last decade.  Incorrect

water level of the lakes is irrelevant

D. Camping at the lakes has never been prohibited.  Incorrect

it neither support nor against argument

E.  Higher fees would actually deter a significant amount of people from visiting the lakes.   Correct

can be an assumption, so extra fees will decrease number of visitors and deterioration of the lakes water

egmat · Answer

Hi,

Let me break this question down step by step.

The argument's logic chain is: 
-  Problem:  Too many visitors are causing lake water quality to deteriorate.
-  Solution (Conclusion):  Charging an extra fee will save the lakes.

Now, think about the hidden link between the problem and the solution. The argument assumes that charging a fee will reduce the number of visitors, which will then reduce the deterioration. But what if people don't care about the fee and keep showing up anyway? Then the plan falls apart completely.

This is exactly what Answer E captures:  Higher fees would actually deter a significant amount of people from visiting the lakes. Without this assumption, the conclusion has no legs to stand on.

Let's quickly eliminate the others: 
-  A  says global temperatures are mostly responsible. This actually  DESTROYS the argument  (the argument says visitors are the cause), so it can't be an assumption supporting it.
-  B  says fees won't be enough to stop destruction. This also  undermines the conclusion  rather than supporting it.
-  C  talks about lake levels falling. This is an  irrelevant detail  — the argument is about water quality, not water level.
-  D  says camping has never been prohibited. This is a random fact with no logical connection to whether fees will help.

The Negation Test confirms E:   If higher fees would NOT deter people from visiting, then charging a fee would be pointless and the conclusion collapses. That proves  E  is a  necessary assumption .

Key Takeaway:  For assumption questions, always ask yourself: What MUST be true for the conclusion to logically follow from the premises? The gap here was between charging a fee and actually reducing visitors — the argument needs that bridge to work.

Answer: E

Country Casa's lakes have been experiencing a constant deterioration

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

Country Casa's lakes have been experiencing a constant deterioration

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