Test: Assumptions - GMAT MCQ

(A) Secondary schools should teach only those skills that are the most useful for the decisions that adults typically make in their daily lives. - WRONG. Bit of an extreme case rather an inference.
(B) Teaching secondary school students the more abstract aspects of science is at least as important as teaching them to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues. - WRONG. Its like C only. A comparison is not necessarily true.
(C) Adults who have an abstract knowledge of science are no better at evaluating science-based arguments regarding practical issues than are adults who have no knowledge of science at all. - WRONG. This can be somewhat an inference for this passage. However, it is not true neither it helps.
(D) No secondary school science courses currently teach students how to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues. - WRONG. There can be such a situation wherein out of 1000 courses only 2 teach but eventually that leads us to nowhere. The argument still remains valid as it follows the majority aspects. So, this choice is a extreme case or exceptional case that does not help us in reaching the conclusion. It does not necessarily need to be true.
(E) The ability to evaluate science-based arguments regarding practical issues is sometimes useful in making the decisions that adults typically make in their daily lives. - CORRECT. If not so then conclusion falls apart.

The argument presented is a causal argument. The significant underlying assumption of the argument, therefore, relates to the causal link between the anti-smoking education program and the reduction in smoking on school premises. The argument assumes that the program, and not some other set of circumstances, caused the reduction. It thus assumes that other possible causes— such as an increase in the price of cigarettes— were not substantial contributors to this result. Process of Elimination is effective on this question, as it is on all Critical Reasoning questions. Because the argument hinges on one crucial piece of evidence— a decrease in the incidence of smoking on school premises— you can eliminate all answers that do not speak directly to that reduction. Thus you can eliminate (A), (C), and (D). Choice (E), if true, would weaken the argument and therefore cannot be correct. The best answer is (B).

The argument concludes that for-profit colleges enroll a greater proportion of financially disadvantaged students than do non-profit colleges. This conclusion is based on the fact that students at for-profit colleges draw a disproportionate share of federal and state financial aid. The argument assumes a link between the proportion of aid received and the proportion of financially disadvantaged students enrolled. In so doing, it assumes that there are not other possible reasons for the disproportionate aid distribution.

(A) The conclusion makes a claim about the differences between for-profit and non-profit colleges. Differences among non-profit colleges – such as public vs. private – are irrelevant to the argument.
(B) CORRECT. One alternative reason that might explain the disproportionate aid distribution is that for-profit colleges engaged in fraudulent practices to obtain unneeded financial assistance for their students. If this were true, then much of the aid was distributed based not on the actual financial situation of the students but on the ability of colleges to defraud federal and state governments. This answer choice asserts that this was NOT in fact the case, thereby eliminating this alternative explanation and highlighting a key assumption upon which the argument rests.
(C) The argument's claim is centered on proportions. The actual number of students receiving aid at for-profit vs. non-profit colleges is irrelevant to the conclusion.
(D) The relative educational quality of for-profit vs. non-profit colleges lies outside the scope of the argument, which is focused solely on differences in financial aid distribution.
(E) The issue addressed by the argument is the amount of financial aid distributed to students at two types of institutions. Whether students successfully repay their loans after college is immaterial to the claim made in the argument.

Option A - Incorrect
Well, the Aymara speakers who sway forward when discussing the past and backward when discussing the future, isn't an assumption, but rather an established fact in the argument.

Option B - Incorrect
The linguist reasoning isn't exactly based on how people visualises time as running either forward or backward but on how the language one speaks affect how one's mentally visualizes time, according to the argument.

Option C - Incorrect
The arguments main concern isn't about the way English and Aymara speakers sway or gesture forward and backward when discussing the present which contradicts the past and the future bring discussed in the argument.

Option D - Correct
The linguist reasoning depends on assuming that the way people move when discussing the future correlates with the way they mentally visualizes time. That's why English speakers gesture forward ahead and the Aymara speakers gesture backward when discussing the future because for them, the future is behind.

Option E - Incorrect
The argument made no mention of other speakers aside the English and Aymara speakers, so this cannot serve as an assumption to which the linguist's reasoning is based on.

To evaluate the government's claim about the payback on the investment being less than 3 years, let's consider the information provided:

1. The government spent $500 billion on enhancing employment, resulting in the creation of 10 million jobs.
2. An average job in the US saves the government $10,000 in social security benefits and provides $15,000 in taxes.

The government's claim suggests that the cumulative benefits from these jobs will exceed the initial investment of $500 billion within a timeframe of less than 3 years. This claim is based on the following reasoning:

If a significant number of the jobs created are comparable to or better than an average job, it means that these jobs would generate similar or higher benefits to what is described as an average job. In this scenario, the average job saves the government $10,000 in social security benefits and provides $15,000 in taxes.

Therefore, if a significant portion of the 10 million jobs created can be assumed to have similar benefits as the average job, the cumulative benefits from these jobs would be substantial. Consequently, it is possible for the cumulative benefits to exceed the initial investment of $500 billion within a period of less than 3 years.

This assumption is critical because if a majority of the jobs created do not meet the criteria of being comparable to or better than an average job, their benefits may be lower than those used in the government's calculations. In such a case, the payback period may be longer than 3 years or may not be achieved at all.

Therefore, the government's claim about the payback on the investment being less than 3 years is based on the assumption that a significant number of the jobs created are comparable to or better than an average job.

Conclusion: This way [by placing only limited restrictions on the availability of information about an individual’s financial history to businesses] credit bureaus can prevent the foolhardy consumer from becoming seriously overextended.

Premise: Every time a business grants financial credit to an individual, the business assumes risk. In order to evaluate the risk, a business must have correct information about that individual's financial history. It is true that credit bureaus, which compile such information from computerized records, have been accused of invading the consumer's right to privacy. If, only limited restrictions are placed on the availability of such information to businesses, those businesses will be able to reduce their overall exposure to risk by giving credit only to people with good credit ratings while at the same time extending larger amounts of credit to more people.

Assumptions: There are no problems with the plan. Placing limited restrictions on the availability of credit information to businesses, will allow those businesses to reduce their overall exposure to risk by giving credit only to people with good credit ratings while at the same time extending larger amounts of credit to more people, thus preventing the foolhardy consumer from becoming seriously overextended.

The question stem asks the author assumes which of the following, so this is an assumption question. The argument uses a planning reasoning pattern. This can be identified by recognizing that the passage says this way credit bureaus can, in fact, prevent the foolhardy consumer from becoming seriously overextended to reference the proposed plan stating that if, only limited restrictions are placed on the availability of (credit) information to businesses, those businesses will be able to reduce their overall exposure to risk by giving credit only to people with good credit ratings while at the same time extending larger amounts of credit to more people.

The standard assumption of a planning reasoning pattern is that there are no problems with the plan. Because this is an assumption question, the correct answer will provide a reason that the plan will work. Evaluate the answer choices.

Choice A: No. The phrase It is difficult to quantify the risk involved in any single decision to grant credit is extreme language. If it were true, then the plan would not work. If the credit information provided to businesses did not quantify the credit risk, the credit information would not allow those businesses to reduce their overall exposure to risk by giving credit only to people with good credit ratings while at the same time extending larger amounts of credit to more people.

Choice B: No. The phrase no factual basis for making credit decisions is extreme language that is not supported by the passage and is not an assumption of the argument.

Choice C: Correct. This choice is supported by the argument. The plan would work if The financial data that credit bureaus supply to businesses is generally accurate. Use the negation test to evaluate the assumption. If The financial data that credit bureaus supply to businesses weren’t generally accurate, then the argument would no longer be valid because it would not be possible to guarantee that businesses were giving credit only to people with good credit ratings.

Choice D: No. This choice is out of scope. The difficulty of reducing the complexities of an individual's financial history to a computerized record, is not pertinent to the plan to place only limited restrictions on the availability of information about an individual’s financial history to businesses.

Choice E: No. The phrase Consumers, in general, tend to seek more credit than they can safely assume is extreme language. The passage does not imply that consumers in general seek more credit than they can safely assume. It indicates that the plan is intended to prevent the foolhardy consumer from becoming seriously overextended.

Here’s How to Crack It:
The question asks for the assumption made by the author, so this is an assumption question.

An assumption supports the conclusion of an argument, so when you read the passage, look for the conclusion. The word “thus” in the passage’s final sentence gives it away: in the world of high finance, information is the most valuable commodity.

Now determine what information in the passage is in support of the conclusion. Two pieces of information are provided in support of the conclusion. One group of people—most people—believe that gold and platinum are the most valuable commodities. Another group— true entrepreneurs—believe that gold and platinum are less valuable than is the knowledge of opportunities.

From the opinions of two groups of people, the author concludes that the opinion of one group is to be preferred, but the passage doesn’t say why. Therefore, it’s likely that the correct answer will explain why the opinion of the true entrepreneur is to be preferred. With that in mind, you’re ready to attack the answer choices:

A. Gold and platinum are not the most valuable commodities.
This answer appears to support the conclusion. If gold and platinum are not the most valuable commodities, there’s a chance that information is. By itself, however, the idea that gold and platinum are not the most valuable commodities doesn’t mean information is the most valuable commodity. This assumption provides no reason why the author should agree with the true entrepreneur; it doesn’t link the argument’s premises to its conclusion. Eliminate (A).

B. Entrepreneurs are not like most people in other careers.
This answer choice doesn’t tell you anything you don’t already know: if the true entrepreneur doesn’t share the opinion of most people, then entrepreneurs aren’t like most people (at least not in the way they value commodities). In any case, this answer doesn’t provide a reason to favor the opinion of the true entrepreneur. Eliminate (B).

C. The value of information is incalculably high.
Be wary of the extreme language in this answer choice. The author needn’t assume the value of information is incalculable in order to believe that it’s the most valuable commodity. On the other hand, the value of many commodities might be incalculable; it doesn’t follow from this that information is most valuable. Eliminate (C).

D. Information about business opportunities is accurate and leads to increased wealth.
This answer links the argument’s conclusion to its premises by providing a reason to side with the true entrepreneur. To check whether this assumption is required by the argument, apply the Negation Test. If information isn’t accurate and doesn’t lead to increased wealth, it’s unclear why the author believes it to be most valuable. Negating this answer disrupts the argument, so keep (D).
E. Only entrepreneurs feel that information is the most valuable commodity.
This answer is out of scope. It doesn’t matter who believes information to be most valuable. What matters is why the author believes it to be most valuable. Eliminate (E).

Premise:  About two million years ago, lava dammed up a river in western Asia and caused a small lake to form. The lake existed for about half a million years. Bones of an early human ancestor were recently found in the ancient lake-bottom sediments on top of the layer of lava.
Conclusion: Therefore, ancestors of modern humans lived in Western Asia between 2 million and 1.5 million years ago.
Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
(A) There were not other lakes in the immediate area before the lava dammed up the river. - irrelevant
(B) The lake contained fish that the human ancestors could have used for food. - Irrelevant
(C) The lava under the lake-bottom sediments did not contain any human fossil remains - This is a trap answer if you read too fast as the premise states human remains were found on top sediments in lake bottom. Irrespective of the location with respect to lava layer this is not an assumption rather a mere statement of fact hence incorrect choice.
(D) The lake was deep enough that a person could drown in it - This is not an assumption rather a property of the lake and does not support the conclusion that humans existed because their remains were found in the lake.
(E) The bones were already in the sediments by the time the lake disappeared - Correct! This is the assumption that the author bases his/her conclusion on. The author assumes that human remains were already in the sediment on or before the lake disappeared on which basis the conclusion that humans existed when the lake existed is arrived at.

How's that for eloquence? The strange part is that most of us really have no problem understanding the meaning of this phrase. Which is, in fact, the author's beef in the stimulus. He gets right to the point: the conclusion that the increase in colloquialisms degrades the English language. For evidence, the author then (1) gives us an example of a colloquialism, the illustrious phrase in the title above, and (2) states that imprecise word usage on a large scale basically decreases the quality of the language, hence, the tie in with the conclusion in the first sentence. The assumption resides in the gaps between these pieces of information; we were never told that these colloquialisms were rampant or imprecise. Indeed, the author states that imprecise words admitted on a large scale decrease a language's quality, without showing that colloquialisms really fall into either category. That omission constitutes the shift in scope. For the author's conclusion to be valid based on this evidence, he must assume that the evidence is relevant to the conclusion, and that colloquialisms are both imprecise and prevalent in English. The right answer choice, (B), picks up on both. Without this, the evidence simply doesn't lead all the way to the conclusion.
(A) focuses on the source of colloquialisms, which the author addresses but which plays a central role in neither the evidence nor the conclusion. This could or could not be true without impacting the conclusion.
(C) basically restates the evidence. If "no language" can permit such laxity, then these three languages would logically follow along, but since the stimulus already tells us this much, (C) is not a necessary assumption here.
An 800 test taker recognizes the difference between a stated piece of evidence and an unstated—yet required—part of an argument (i.e., its assumption).
(D), if anything, presents us with a flawed inference, which would only be accurate if the author assumed that the stated colloquialism were the only colloquialism in English, and that only colloquialisms degrade the English language. He assumes neither, so if this were an Inference question, (D) would be wrong on these counts. As far as being assumed—that is, being something that's required by the argument—(D) is even further off base.
(E) is too extreme. The author identifies one cause (proliferating colloquialisms) which leads to one effect (like, um, degraded English). To make this argument, he does not need to assume that this cause is more or less serious than any other. Even if colloquialisms were a minor part of this problem, the author's conclusion could still be valid.

Whenever you are looking to find an assumption on which a conclusion rests, your goal should be to use the Assumption Negation technique. Which answer choice, if negated, would most harm the argument? To understand that, it helps to spend some time looking at the argument itself.

The argument states that students are more likely to attempt harder problems if they receive feedback on their process rather than on whether they got questions correct or not. Because of this, the argument states, teachers who give feedback on process are more likely to see better outcomes. The thing to focus on to here is that a certain type of feedback leads to a student behavior leads to a specific type of learning outcome. The gap exists between behavior and outcome.
If choice (A) is negated, it becomes: “Students are less likely to learn from doing harder problems than they are from doing easier ones.” If that were true, the entire argument - that a specific type of feedback leads to a specific type of learning outcome - would fall apart. This is your correct answer.
If choice (B) were negated, it becomes “positive feedback is not the best way to motivate students.” Because this argument only deals with two types of positive feedback, this does not affect the outcome.
If choice (C) is negated, it becomes “Students cannot articulate the difference between different types of positive feedback.” The argument doesn’t address whether it’s important that students be able to make this distinction, so this can be eliminated.
If choice (D) is negated, it becomes: “Feedback based on perceived intelligence is more favorable toward students than are other types of feedback.” The issue here lies in the lack of specificity. Does “more favorable” mean better outcomes or does it mean that students like the feedback better? Because it’s open to that debate, it cannot be a core assumption made by the argument.
When choice (E) is eliminated, it becomes “The most important indicator of success is NOT whether students are willing to attempt harder questions and assignments.” The argument doesn’t state that feedback is the most important factor, just that it is a factor. Additionally, there is another bit of vague language used in this choice. What does “success” mean - does it mean educational outcomes, or does it mean success later in life? Either way, choice (E) can be eliminated.