World War II had a profound effect on the growth of nascent

Question

World War II had a profound effect on the growth of nascent businesses. The Acme Packaging Company netted only $10,000 in the year before the war. By 1948, it was earning almost 10 times that figure.

The argument above depends upon which of the following assumptions.

A. Acme's growth rate is representative of that of other nascent businesses.

B. An annual profit of $10,000 is not especially high.

C. Wars inevitably stimulate a nation's economy.

D. Rapid growth for nascent businesses is especially desirable.

E. Acme is not characterized by responsible, far-sighted managers.

This is a  CR Butler Question

Check the links to other Butler Projects:
 
  Data Sufficiency Butler  
  Problem Solving Butler  
  Reading Comprehension Butler

Shyam97 · Answer

Option A -- claim about nascent businesses as a whole to hold true based solely on single-company data (Acme), Acme's experience must be representative of other nascent businesses.

gmat147 · Answer

Conclusion: world war 2 servers as a major catalyst for growth of nascent businesses 
Why: Acme corp grew revenue

Therefore, the assumption should show a link b/w Acme group and nascent businesses

Correct answer: option A which shows acme group’s growth is representative of nascent business

RootPark · Answer

The Story    
  
World War II had a profound effect on the growth of nascent businesses. –   Conclusion  :  WWII PROFOUNDLY affected the growth of NASCENT (new/emerging) BUSINESSES AS A CATEGORY. (This is a GENERAL claim about an entire CLASS of businesses.)

The Acme Packaging Company netted only $10,000 in the year before the war. By 1948, it was earning almost 10 times that figure. –    Evidence :    ONE SPECIFIC COMPANY (Acme) grew roughly 10x from pre-war to 1948. (Gap: the argument uses data from JUST ONE COMPANY as its ENTIRE evidentiary basis for a SWEEPING claim about "nascent businesses" broadly. For this SINGLE EXAMPLE to actually SUPPORT the GENERAL conclusion, Acme's growth pattern must be REPRESENTATIVE/TYPICAL of nascent businesses as a whole — not some unusual OUTLIER case (e.g., due to Acme's SPECIFIC INDUSTRY, LOCATION, MANAGEMENT, or LUCK) that happened to grow dramatically for reasons UNRELATED to the general war-driven pattern being claimed.)

Question Stem framework

Necessary assumption question. We need the assumption that allows this SINGLE COMPANY'S growth to serve as valid evidence for a GENERAL claim about NASCENT BUSINESSES as a category.

Prediction

Something like:  "Acme's growth rate is REPRESENTATIVE of other nascent businesses" — establishing that Acme isn't a special, unusual case, but reflects the BROADER PATTERN the conclusion claims.

Answer choice analysis

A. Acme's growth rate is representative of that of other nascent businesses.
   Correct.  This is exactly the necessary assumption. The argument uses Acme as its SOLE piece of evidence for a claim about NASCENT BUSINESSES GENERALLY. For this SINGLE-CASE evidence to legitimately support the GENERAL conclusion, Acme's growth must be TYPICAL/REPRESENTATIVE of nascent businesses as a whole. Negation test: "Acme's growth rate is NOT representative of other nascent businesses" (i.e., Acme was a special/unusual case) → then Acme's dramatic growth wouldn't tell us anything meaningful about nascent businesses IN GENERAL, and the argument's conclusion would have NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE left. This confirms necessity.

B. An annual profit of $10,000 is not especially high.
Incorrect. Whether $10,000 is a HIGH or LOW baseline profit doesn't affect whether Acme's GROWTH PATTERN (10x increase) is representative of nascent businesses generally. This is irrelevant to the core generalization gap.

C. Wars inevitably stimulate a nation's economy.
Incorrect. This is a much BROADER, STRONGER claim (about the ENTIRE NATIONAL ECONOMY, using the word "inevitably") than what the argument specifically needs. The argument's conclusion is about "nascent businesses," not the economy as a whole — and it doesn't need an ABSOLUTE, UNIVERSAL claim about ALL wars to support its SPECIFIC point about THIS war's effect on nascent businesses via Acme's example.

D. Rapid growth for nascent businesses is especially desirable.
Incorrect. This is a VALUE JUDGMENT (desirability) — completely irrelevant to whether the argument's FACTUAL claim (that WWII affected nascent business growth) is properly supported by the Acme evidence.

E. Acme is not characterized by responsible, far-sighted managers.
Incorrect. This introduces a SPECIFIC alternative explanation (GOOD MANAGEMENT causing the growth, rather than the war) and asks us to assume this DIDN'T happen — but this is a much narrower, one-off consideration. The REAL necessary assumption is broader: that Acme's experience GENERALIZES to nascent businesses overall (regardless of the SPECIFIC reason for Acme's growth). Even if we ruled out "good management" as an explanation, we'd STILL need Acme to be REPRESENTATIVE for the argument to work — so (A) is the more fundamental, necessary assumption, while (E) addresses only ONE possible alternative explanation among many (industry-specific luck, location, market conditions, etc.) without addressing the CORE single-case-to-general-claim gap.

Additional Notes

This is a classic " single example used as evidence for a general/categorical claim — representativeness assumption " pattern. Whenever an argument draws a conclusion about an  ENTIRE CATEGORY/CLASS (nascent businesses, all companies, a whole population)  but supports it with data from  ONLY ONE OR A FEW SPECIFIC INSTANCES , the argument ALWAYS needs the assumption that those instances are   REPRESENTATIVE  of the broader category — otherwise, the single case could simply be an OUTLIER or SPECIAL CASE that doesn't reflect the general pattern at all.

(E) is a well-designed trap because it correctly identifies that SOME ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION  for Acme's growth COULD undermine the argument — this is genuine, sound reasoning instinct. But it's too  NARROW/SPECIFIC : it only rules out ONE possible alternative cause (management quality) rather than the  BROADER , more fundamental assumption (that Acme generally REPRESENTS the category). Even if we confirmed Acme did NOT have unusually good management, Acme could STILL be unrepresentative for many OTHER reasons (its specific industry benefited uniquely from wartime demand, its location, sheer luck, etc.) — so ruling out just ONE alternative explanation isn't sufficient; the argument needs the BROADER "representative" assumption to truly hold.

General strategy  :  whenever you see an argument that says "Company X (or Person X, or Event X) experienced Y, therefore   generally experiences Y," always check for a "representativeness" necessary assumption FIRST, before considering more narrow, ALTERNATIVE-EXPLANATION-based options. The BROADEST, MOST FUNDAMENTAL gap in single-case-to-general-claim arguments is almost always whether the SPECIFIC CASE used as evidence is TYPICAL of the CATEGORY being generalized to.

vasu1104 · Answer

acme packaging company netted only $10000 in the year before the war. by 1948, it was earning almost 10 time that figure.

conclusion= WWII had profound effect on growth of nascent business.

we have data of only one company and conclusion is made about one industry in general.

A if thats the case then we can definitely conclude that nascent business is growing becasue then other similar companies are doing the same way. hence its applicable to entire segment. keep.
B it doesnt say anything about profit at all. the mentioned num could represent anything. irrelevant.
C this talks about nation's economy but we are not concerned about that. out.
D good to know that they consider growth of nascent businees desirable but its not at all imp here. out.
E who cares? reject

Choice A

dhart · Answer

it looks like the argument assumes that acme corp is representaive of all the nascent buisnesses

Vivek1707 · Answer

A. Correct The argument uses Acme as evidence for all nascent businesses. So it must assume Acme's growth is representative of other nascent businesses.
B. The starting profit doesn't need to be unusually low. The important point is the change from $10,000 to almost $100,000.
C. The argument is specifically about WWII, not wars in general.
D. The argument says the war had an effect on growth; it doesn't claim that rapid growth is desirable.
E. Acme's managers could have contributed to its growth. The argument doesn't need to rule that out completely

Taidaishar · Answer

Conclusion: World War II had a profound effect on the growth of nascent businesses.

Premise: The Acme Packaging Company netted only $10,000 in the year before the war. By 1948, it was earning almost 10 times that figure.

A  nascent business's success after 1948 --->  ww2  had a profound effect on the growth of  all  nascent businesses.

A. Acme's growth rate is representative of that of other nascent businesses - The argument assumes one business's success and considers it representative of all the nascent businesses.   Correct .

B. An annual profit of $10,000 is not especially high - even if it were high, it still increased tenfold after 1948.  Eliminated

C. Wars inevitably stimulate a nation's economy - we're concerned about one specific type of businesses, not the nation's economy as a whole.  Eliminated

D. Rapid growth for nascent businesses is especially desirable - the desirability is irrelevant.  Eliminated

E. Acme is not characterized by responsible, far-sighted managers - Irrelevant, what the current managers of Acme are characterized by.  Eliminated

counterclash1 · Answer

Correct Answer: A

Argument Structure:
- Premise: Acme Packaging Company grew its earnings 10x between the pre-war year and 1948.
- Conclusion: World War II had a profound effect on the growth of nascent businesses.

The Flaw:
The argument commits a Part-to-Whole / Hasty Generalization flaw, projecting the 
experience of a single company (Acme) onto all "nascent businesses."

Testing Option (A) via the Negation Technique:
- Negation: Acme's growth rate is NOT representative of that of other nascent businesses.
- Impact: If Acme is an outlier and does not reflect the broader market, then Acme's 
 performance tells us nothing about nascent businesses in general. The author's 
 conclusion is completely invalidated.

Therefore, (A) is the required assumption.

Bunuel · Answer

KAPLAN OFFICIAL EXPLANATION:

A

The author uses the single case of Acme to conclude that the war profoundly affected "nascent businesses." This assumes that Acme's growth rate is typical, or representative, of such businesses (A); otherwise, why hold it up as an example?

As for (B), the author needn't assume that $10,000 isn't much of a profit. Maybe he thinks it started out high and got even higher. (C), which brings up other wars, is beyond the scope the argument concerns World War II, period. (D)'s tricky, but ifs not assumed. Notice that the author claims only that World War II had a profound, not salutary, effect on nascent businesses, so we don't know just how he feels about rapid growth rates. As for (E), the author needn't assume Acme's managers had nothing to do with the company's success, just that the war also had an effect-and a marked one.

World War II had a profound effect on the growth of nascent

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

­World War II had a profound effect on the growth of nascent

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

World War II had a profound effect on the growth of nascent