Confusion on this argument

[JbhB682]

Source : Manhattan Blog

Argument: The state government will pay a percentage of university tuition for high school students who attend a four-year university within the state. This will improve the state’s economy by increasing the number of university-educated adults in the workforce.

Which of the following is an assumption made by the state government in proposing this plan?

A) High school students whose tuition is subsidized will stay within the state after graduating from college.
B) Some students who otherwise would have attended trade schools after high school will instead attend universities within the state.
C) The majority of students who receive the tuition subsidy will successfully graduate from college.

[JbhB682]

Question : Why scenario is the premise and the conclusion of this argument

Scenario 1

Argument : Because a certain % of tuition waived off by the state, thus the economy will grow

In this scenario -- " increasing the number of university-educated adults in the workforce" is just a FYI, not really playing a role in the author's argument ...Even if this information was not included by the author, nothing will happen to the argument

Scenario 2

Argument : Because a certain % of tuition waived off by the state, this will mean more people will enter the workforce

In this scenario -- " This will improve the state’s economy" is not the conclusion of the argument



Scenario 3

Argument :

Because a certain % of tuition waived off by the state
--> (interim conclusion) more adults in the workforce
--> final conclusion -- because more adults in the workforce --> economy will improve

In this scenario -- the interim conclusion is playing the role of the premise for the final conclusion. The premise for the final conclusion is the interim conclusion and not the % of tuition waved off the state

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

I'm not sure I understand your question here. Of the analysis you provide, I most agree with Scenario 3. If you found analyzing this argument frustrating, then I hear you! I used to find Critical Reasoning infuriating. Here are a few thoughts:

1) Critical Reasoning arguments are full of gaps, and that's why they can ask assumption, evaluate, strengthen / weaken problems about these arguments. CR arguments usually make multiple assumptions. Here, one gap is "would these discounts actually increase the number of university-educated adults in the workforce?"; another is "would that actually improve the economy?".

2) For that reason, we've got to interpret the argument as it's presented, not as we would like it to be. Pay careful attention to whether something is presented as a fact or an opinion.

3) The wording in CR arguments is deliberately vague. Part of the "real world" dimension, is that CR arguments aren't phrased precisely. There's a careful balance between leaving some uncertainly to confuse the reader, but at the same time having enough precision so that the problems make sense without needing any unreasonable assumptions. I think GMAT does a great job with this balance, although it sometimes leaves me feeling annoyed when I miss something.