CR: periodicals

[RaffaeleM39]

This is an example of Chapter 4 [from CR Strategy Guide]

When news periodicals begin forecasting a recession, people tend to spend less money on nonessential purchases. Therefore, the perceived threat of a future recession decreases the willingness of people to purchase products that they regard as optional or luxury goods.

There is an "implied" assumption I did not understand

[It is implied that] The recession hasn't already started and that's why people are spending less money-maybe the periodicals are just slow in forecasting something that has already started

I understand it tries to establish a reverse causality bias but that's not the case in my mind

"When news periodicals begin forecasting a recession, people tend to spend less money on nonessential purchases"

This should be an undisputed fact, right? I have to take it for true, right?
I interpreted it like this: If, at t0, periodicals write "recession", at t1>t0 people will start to spend less money, with t1-t0 as little as possible (right after they start spending less money)
If the recession is already started, that undisputed fact is not true: people already spend less money, and they don't start right after to spend less money. So this is an assumption, but of the undisputed fact, not on the link "recession less money -> perceived threat, less luxury goods"

So where do I have to look for the gap? Between the two phrases connected by "therefore" (as I understood it), or also in undisputed facts?
Because otherwise it is also assuming that we are on Earth, that news periodicals exists, that people exists....

I don't know if I explained correctly my doubt

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

I'm not sure I completely understand your issue, but I can sympathize with your frustration (I also found CR very frustrating when I first studied it, as it can seem extremely vague and full of it's own assumptions).

First of all, this is just a short example argument. Don't get too tangled with this one as it's not an actual problem. Be clear what an assumption is: it's a gap between the premise and the conclusion that the argument needs in order to work. I'd recommend that you watch the Interact lesson from session #4 on assumptions.

Second, I agree with you that the explanation for the example you cite could be confusing. I'd explain it in another way. In my mind, even though we can accept the first sentence ('When news periodicals begin forecasting a recession, people tend to spend less money on nonessential purchases.') as a fact, we don't know the causal connection. Are the people spending less money because of the news periodicals, or perhaps they're spending less money because of some other reason, such as the fact that the recession has already started and people have less money? This clearly makes a problem for the conclusion ('the perceived threat of a future recession decreases the willingness of people to purchase products that they regard as optional or luxury goods'). So, for the argument to work, we need to assume that it's not the recession itself causing the decrease in spending.

Finally, we need to apply common sense to the kind of assumptions we consider. The Strategy Guide mentions two issues: the cause of the decrease in spending, and the use of the words 'non-essential' and 'luxury'. I agree that those are the important issues. Don't start worrying about aliens, the existence of the Earth, or other crazy things!

I'd recommend that you watch that Interact lesson, and do some easier level problems from the OG. If you analyze them closely, you'll see better how assumptions work in a GMAT context.