When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended

Argument talks about an increase in nuclear arms testing and jumps to perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe. Only C fills this logical gap. Moreover C also passes the LEN test.

Correct Answer: C

The link between the threat of nuclear catastrophe and the arms' testing is established only by this option. Can someone explain what's a LEN test?

I think it's a alternate terminology for Logical Negation Test. In assumption question, the best way to check the close answer is to negate the statement logically and check whether the argument still exists or dies.

Here it will be C. people’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe do not depends on the amount of nuclear -arms testing being done

So if this negated statement is true then the argument dies. Hence its the correct assumption.

Easy choice, use LEN technique to attack choice C and we will found out the correct one.

The argument talks about nuclear testing but the conclusion talks about people's perception of nuclear threat. In order for the conclusion to hold, we must assume a relation between these two. Hence the answer has to be C.
Hope that helps.

Conclusion: The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe decreases tendency of saving and increases spending.

1) the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased over the years
-- Not an assumption and conclusion is not based upon this fact.
2) most people supported the development of nuclear arms
-- Not an assumption and conclusion is not based upon this fact.
3) people’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear-arms testing being done
-- Thsi bridges the gap between people's perception of neuclear threat (and hence their spending) and amount of nuclear testing.
4) the people who saved the most money when nuclear-arms testing was limited were the ones who supported such limitations
-- Author dont have to assume this to arrive at his conclusion.
5) there are more consumer goods available when nuclear-arms testing increases
-- Not an assumption and conclusion is not based upon this fact.

Hence choice(C) is the answer.

Premise: When arms testing increases , people save less.

Conclusion: Perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe decreases people's willingness to save.
So Perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe also makes people save less.
That means "Perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe" also leads to the same result.
Why ?
Because "Perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe" depends on the "arms testing".

"Perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe" means "Arms testing".
They are proportional to each other.
So the assumption is :-
people’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe
depends on the amount of nuclear -arms testing being done.

Option C is the correct answer.

Please give me KUDO s if you liked my explanation.

GMATNinja generis VeritasKarishma­

The argument is that the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.
This is based on evidence that when nuclear testing is limited, people spend more, but when nuclear testing increases, people spend less.

A is incorrect - we don't need to know a trend to make this argument, we can simply deduce the argument based on a one-year observation.
B is incorrect - it is not conducive to the argument at all
C is correct - try inserting this.
People's perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear arms testing being done, therefore the perceived nuclear catastrophe decreases the willingness of people to postpone spending when the perceived amount of testing increases and decrease consumption when the perceived amount of testing decreases.

D is incorrect as it doesn't need to be assumed to make the argument.
E is incorrect as the argument is concerned with purchasing of goods (demand) not the supply of goods.

AndrewN

Is my analysis and negation for option C correct?

This is the correct answer choice because if people's perception of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear testing then we can say that the people's spending power is influenced by nuclear arm's testing. When we negate this option statement we get people's perception does not depend on nuclear arms testing. So this breaks the conclusion that people's behavior is not influenced by nuclear arms testing but by some other factor. Hence, this is the correct answer choice

Please share your two cents

Yes, krndatta, I would say you have it just right. You might know from some of my posts on assumption questions that I do not employ the popular negation technique. It is not that I doubt its effectiveness, just that I prefer to leave everything exactly as is and look to insert the assumption between the premise(s) and conclusion or argument. In this case, that would give us the following (see whether the logical flow is seamless or impeded):

Premise: When limitations were in effect on nuclear-arms testing, people tended to save more of their money, but when nuclear arms testing increased people tended to spend more of their money.

Assumption: [P]eople’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear -arms testing being done.

Argument: The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, therefore, decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.

I cannot think of a better way to bridge the gap between premise and argument, to be honest, and we know we have found our assumption in the process.

Thank you for thinking to ask, and well done on the question.

- Andrew

Conclusion - Perceived threat (increase in nuclear arms testing) causes decreases saving money and increases current consumption.
Type - Assumption

(A) the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased over the years - This answers the question that the amount of testing has increased or the limitations on testing have been lifted, but doesn't answer the question, i.e., does it lead to decrease in people saving money. Drop

(B) most people supported the development of nuclear arms - Again doesn't explain how testing/perception of threat leads to saving less money. Drop

(C) people’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear-arms testing being done. This explains how amount of testing and perception of catastrophe are interlinked. Keep

(D) the people who saved the most money when nuclear -arms testing was limited were the ones who supported such limitations. Who benefitted the most from the legislation? What's their stance on nuclear arms testing? Whatever the answer, we still something that explains why increase in testing leads people to pull out or reduce their savings. Drop

(E) there are more consumer goods available when nuclear-arms testing increases - That maybe so, but doesn't explain the causal link. Drop