Critical reasoning question

[dumplinghao]

With a record number of new companies starting up in Derderia and with previously established companies adding many jobs, a record number of new jobs were created last year in the Derderian economy. This year, previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year. Therefore, unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for the new jobs created.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

A. Each year, new companies starting up create more new jobs overall than do previously established companies.
B. Companies established last year will not add a greater number of jobs overall this year than they did last year.
C. This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.
D. THis year, the overall number of jobs created by previously established companies will be less than the overall number of jobs lost at those companies.
E. The number of jobs created in the Derderian economy last year was substantially larger than the number of jobs lost last year.

How does one tackle this problem?

[dr_o]

I think the answer is C.

The conclusion is "Therefore, unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for the new jobs created. "

The author has concluded that the establishment of new companies is not enough and the number of the new startups must be a record number. from this we can tell that there is some kind of a limit on the number of new jobs an average startup will provide.

C state that assumption "This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year."

[RonPurewal]

I think the answer is C.

The conclusion is "Therefore, unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for the new jobs created. "

The author has concluded that the establishment of new companies is not enough and the number of the new startups must be a record number. from this we can tell that there is some kind of a limit on the number of new jobs an average startup will provide.

C state that assumption "This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year."

correct.

when you examine questions involving quantitative arguments - which this argument definitely is, even though it doesn't contain actual numbers - you should focus especially on the quantitative parts of the argument.

sure enough, in this problem, the issue is to be found in the numbers: the argument asserts that a record number of new startups must be founded. however, what's actually needed is a record number of new startup jobs. therefore, you need an assumption that solidifies the idea that, unless a record number of startups are founded, you won't get a record number of startup jobs, either.

choice c does exactly that.

[Guest]

Actually, I can see that c is correct, but what is wrong with b? I would appreciate of you could explain that.

Thanks..

With a record number of new companies starting up in Derderia and with previously established companies adding many jobs, a record number of new jobs were created last year in the Derderian economy. This year, previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year. Therefore, unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for the new jobs created.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

A. Each year, new companies starting up create more new jobs overall than do previously established companies.
B. Companies established last year will not add a greater number of jobs overall this year than they did last year.
C. This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.
D. THis year, the overall number of jobs created by previously established companies will be less than the overall number of jobs lost at those companies.
E. The number of jobs created in the Derderian economy last year was substantially larger than the number of jobs lost last year.

How does one tackle this problem?

[SAN]

Answer B says what is already said in premise -

This year, previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year. IS SAME AS Companies established last year will not add a greater number of jobs overall this year than they did last year.


Asumptions are not stated in the premises

[RonPurewal]

Answer B says what is already said in premise -

This year, previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year. IS SAME AS Companies established last year will not add a greater number of jobs overall this year than they did last year.


Asumptions are not stated in the premises

no, those aren't the same. choice (b) deals only with companies established last year, whereas the stated premise deals with companies established at any time before this year. the companies dealt with in choice (b), then, are only a small subset of the companies dealt with in the stated premise.

however, we don't need to make the assumption in choice (b), as it's irrelevant one way or the other: the companies founded last year are merely a subset of "previously established companies". therefore, since the stated premise already gives us the overall result for ALL previously founded companies, we have no need to be concerned with the results of smaller components of that population (such as (b)).

another way to look at it: if a statement is a required assumption, that means the PASSAGE WON'T WORK if the assumption is FALSE.
this is not the case with choice (b). it's perfectly possible for choice (b) to be false - for the companies founded last year to add more new jobs - and yet the stated premise can still be true; all that it takes is for the companies founded before last year to add even fewer jobs, to cancel out the additional jobs added by last year's companies.

but yeah, make sure that you read the answer choices very, very literally. "founded last year" is nowhere close to being the same thing as "previously established companies". if you look at those and think they're the same, then you MUST start reading the passages more closely with more attention to detail.

[sudaif]

A is wrong because .... even when negated the conclusion flows...
right?
i.e. even if start up companies do not create more jobs than established companies....the conclusion is valid.

[tim]

that's right, sudaif. the conclusion is not destroyed by negating A, so it is not a necessary assumption..

[prakhar_au]

Hi:

Late reply to an old thread here:).

Putting a bit of quant into this, won't C hold true only if we know that the number of new companies starting up this year will be less than or equal to the number of companies started last year since this option talks about no. of jobs per company? For example,

Let's say no. of companies started last year: 10
No. of jobs rolled out/company: 5
Total jobs last year: 50

No. of comapnies stared this year: 2
No. of jobs rolled out/company: 20
Total jobs this year: 40

So, even after negating C the argument still stands. Even with significant rise in no. of jobs/company this year, you'll still need record no. of companies to break the record.

Please advise on this.

[RonPurewal]

Hi:

Late reply to an old thread here:).

Putting a bit of quant into this, won't C hold true only if we know that the number of new companies starting up this year will be less than or equal to the number of companies started last year since this option talks about no. of jobs per company? For example,

Let's say no. of companies started last year: 10
No. of jobs rolled out/company: 5
Total jobs last year: 50

No. of comapnies stared this year: 2
No. of jobs rolled out/company: 20
Total jobs this year: 40

So, even after negating C the argument still stands. Even with significant rise in no. of jobs/company this year, you'll still need record no. of companies to break the record.

Please advise on this.

i've highlighted (in red) the one very important word that makes your counter-argument invalid.
in fact, since you've provided a convenient numerical framework, i'll prove the incorrectness of this argument, using exactly the same framework:


Let's say no. of companies started last year: 10
No. of jobs rolled out/company: 5
Total jobs last year: 50

No. of comapnies stared this year: 6 (= less than 10)
No. of jobs rolled out/company: 20
Total jobs this year: 120 (= way more than 50)

looks like we've broken the jobs record, without breaking the record for the number of companies started. so we don't need to have a record number of startup companies.

in your argument, you're mistaking "some situations without X will fail" for "we need X no matter what". those two statements are nothing like each other -- the second statement is way, way stronger than the first one.

[prakhar_au]

Thanks Ron.

[rajanbond]

[quote="dumplinghao"]With a record number of new companies starting up in Derderia and with previously established companies adding many jobs, a record number of new jobs were created last year in the Derderian economy. This year, previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year. Therefore,unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for the new jobs created.

Conclusion- Derderia will not break its record for the new jobs created unless a record number of companies start up this year

Evidence/Premises

With a record number of new companies starting up in Derderia and with previously established companies adding many jobs, a record number of new jobs were created last year in the Derderian economy. This year, previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year

Assumption- The overall number of jobs per new company is not enough to break the record.(Gives C as the answer)

Question Stem- Assumption on which argument depends.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

A. Each year, new companies starting up create more new jobs overall than do previously established companies.

Wrong- This will weaken the conclusion

B. Companies established last year will not add a greater number of jobs overall this year than they did last year.

Wrong- This is already stated in the argument.

C. This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.

Correct- If this were not true as an assumption, then the record can be broken again


D. THis year, the overall number of jobs created by previously established companies will be less than the overall number of jobs lost at those companies.

Kind of out of scope

E. The number of jobs created in the Derderian economy last year was substantially larger than the number of jobs lost last year.

Out of scope

[mschwrtz]

Good work Rajan, three points

(1) If this sort of thing
With a record number of new companies starting up in Derderia and with previously established companies adding many jobs, a record number of new jobs were created last year in the Derderian economy. This year, previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year

represents your notes verbatim, each question will take you several minutes. If, on the other hand, it is a translation of your presumably schematic notes, then great.

(2) B is not stated in the premises. The premises say that established companies will produce no more new jobs per company than did established companies last year. B says something slightly different. It still wrong, though.

(3) D is not kind of out-of-scope, it's dead out-of-scope. Any consideration of jobs lost is irrelevant. To be fair, though, once you've eliminated D for reasons of scope, you really don't care how far out of scope it is.