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

Question

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

The argument above assumes that

(A) the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased over the years

(B) most people supported the development of nuclear arms

(C) people’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear -arms testing being done

(D) the people who saved the most money when nuclear -arms testing was limited were the ones who supported such limitations

(E) there are more consumer goods available when nuclear-arms testing increases

On the basis of an observed correlation between arms testing and people’s tendency to save money, the argument concludes that there is a casual connection between a perception of threat and the tendency not to save. That connection cannot be made unless C, linking the perception of threat to the amount of testing being done, is assumed to be true. Therefore, C is the best answer.

The conclusion does not depend on there having been an increase in the perceived thread over time or on how many people supported the development of nuclear arms. Hence, neither A nor B is assumed. Furthermore, the argument does not deal with those who supported arms limitations or with the availability of consumer goods. Thus, D and E are not assumed.

MacFauz · Accepted Answer

Actually it means Least Extreme Negation.

eg: Everyone is good.

Extreme negation of this would be : No one is good. (Meaning there are no good people at all)

Least extreme negation would be : Not everyone is good. (Meaning there are some people who are not good)

When testing an assumption we only want to test with the least extreme negation and check if it kills the conclusion. Extreme negation might even make wrong answer choices kill the conclusion.

Kudos Please... If you liked my post.

mourinhogmat1 · Answer

Conclusion: 
The perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, therefore, (marker) decreases the willingness of people to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.
You are looking for something relating perceived threat and the testing. Only choice is answer C.

A. increase or decrease is OOS. 
B. supporting the testing is OOS. 
C. Correct. 
D. people’s view of the testing is OOS. 
E. consumer goods are irrelevant.

MacFauz · Answer

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.

buddhendra · Answer

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?

SOURH7WK · Answer

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.

tuanquang269 · Answer

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

Marcab · Answer

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.

PrashantPonde · Answer

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.

sayan640 · 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

dcummins · Answer

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.

krndatta · Answer

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

AndrewN · Answer

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 :   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

stackskillz · Answer

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

MartyMurray · Answer

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

The conclusion of the argument is the following:

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

The support for the conclusion is the following:

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.

We see that the reasoning of the argument is basically that, since there has been a correlation between increased nuclear testing and decreased saving, it can be concluded that perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe causes a decrease in people's willingness save money.

One aspect of the argument that we may notice is that it jumps from a fact about a correlation between nuclear testing and saving to a conclusion about "perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe." So, there's a clear gap in the argument.

The argument above assumes that

This is an Assumption question, and the correct answer will be something that must be true for the evidence to effectively support the conclusion.

(A) the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased over the years

This choice is a little tricky to eliminate because the argument does involve the idea that the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased at some point.

However, we can eliminate this choice through noticing that the argument is not about what has occurred "over the years." It's about what has occurred "when nuclear arms testing increased."

The fact that, when nuclear testing increased, saving decreased supports the conclusion regardless of whether the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe has increased "over the years."

So, this choice is not an assumption on which the argument depends.

Eliminate.

(B) most people supported the development of nuclear arms

The argument is not about what people have supported. It's about the effect of the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe.

Eliminate.

(C) people’s perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe depends on the amount of nuclear -arms testing being done

This choice is interesting.

As discussed above, the argument uses evidence involving a correlation between increased nuclear testing and decreased saving to support the conclusion that "the perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe" causes people to be less willing to postpone consumption for the sake of saving money.

To make that jump from the correlation to the conclusion, the argument must assume that increased nuclear testing results in an increase in perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe.

After all, if there were not such a connection between nuclear testing and threat perception, then the fact that there is a correlation between increased nuclear testing and decreased saving would not be reason to believe that perception of the threat of nuclear catastrophe causes a decrease in saving.

So, the argument works only if this choice is true.

Keep.

(D) the people who saved the most money when nuclear -arms testing was limited were the ones who supported such limitations

The argument makes sense regardless of who supported limitations on nuclear testing.

After all, regardless of who supported such limitations, the fact that, when nuclear testing increased, people saved less still supports the conclusion.

Eliminate.

(E) there are more consumer goods available when nuclear-arms testing increases

This choice weakens the argument, doing basically the opposite of what the correct answer must do.

After all, if there are more consumer goods available when nuclear testing increases, the that increase in availability, rather than a perceived threat of nuclear catastrophe, could be the cause of the increase in spending and decrease in saving when nuclear testing increases.

In other words, this choice presents an alternative explanation for the observed correlation and thus casts doubt on the conclusion.

Eliminate.

Correct answer:   C

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

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

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

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