In Kravonia, the average salary for jobs requiring a college

[gkumar]

In Kravonia, the average salary for jobs requiring a college degree has always been
higher than the average salary for jobs that do not require a degree. Current enrollments
in Kravonia’s colleges indicate that over the next four years the percentage of the
Kravonian workforce with college degrees will increase dramatically. Therefore, the
average salary for all workers in Kravonia is likely to increase over the next four years.

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

A. Kravonians with more than one college degree earn more, on average, than do
Kravonians with only one college degree.
B. The percentage of Kravonians who attend college in order to earn higher salaries
is higher now than it was several years ago.
C. The higher average salary for jobs requiring a college degree is not due largely to
a scarcity among the Kravonian workforce of people with a college degree.
D. The average salary in Kravonia for jobs that do not require a college degree will
not increase over the next four years.
E. Few members of the Kravonian workforce earned their degrees in other countries.

OA is C. I chose C. I narrowed it down to those two choices but I am unsure why D is not correct.

My logic was as follows:
The stimulus already says that the number of people with college degrees would increase dramatically.

The assumption for C to be valid is that the average salary would be reduced if there were a scarcity of labor because of more students graduating.

But the stimulus does not say that the creation of more graduates would create a reduction in the average salary, even when there is a scarcity of labor. May be it is possible that the increase in the number of college graduates would be matched by an increase in the number of companies in which case there would be scarcity of labor with an increase in the average salary.

I might be able to see that C is the closest (D is obviously out for the some reason due to irrelevancy?), but it looks like C is not sufficient without additional information in the stimulus.

[RonPurewal]

OA is C. I chose C. I narrowed it down to those two choices but I am unsure why D is not correct.

remember that you're looking for REQUIRED ASSUMPTIONS.

here's a very useful criterion to use in these problems:
try REVERSING putative assumptions and see the effect on the argument.
if you REVERSE A REQUIRED ASSUMPTION, the ARGUMENT SHOULD BECOME INVALID.

let's try this with choice (d):
reverse the assumption: let's say the average salary for non-degree jobs will increase over the next 4 years.
this would actually STRENGTHEN the argument (!), because it would provide another reason that the average salary would increase.
this is the complete opposite of the effect you're looking for; reversing the assumption should destroy the argument.
bad.
very bad.
wrong answer.

But the stimulus does not say that the creation of more graduates would create a reduction in the average salary, even when there is a scarcity of labor. May be it is possible that the increase in the number of college graduates would be matched by an increase in the number of companies in which case there would be scarcity of labor with an increase in the average salary.

the stimulus isn't going to belabor the obvious.
the passage already told you that there is going to be a DRAMATIC INCREASE in the college-educated workforce. unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, you should take it for granted that this dramatic increase will curb the labor scarcity. that is the only reasonable interpretation of "dramatic increase".

you can't introduce some random hypothetical consideration, which may or may not be true (and has zero evidence in the passage), and then try to criticize it as if it were a necessary consequence of the argument!
you should know better than this; making any unwarranted assumptions on CR is disastrous - let alone using those unwarranted assumptions as the basis for further reasoning.
this is one form of a common logical fallacy called ignoratio elenchi, if you're interested in such things.

as soon as you start saying "maybe it is possible that..." in a Find the Assumption question, you should smack yourself in the head and yell "STOP!" at the top of your lungs.

--

funny analogy:
the test instructions don't tell you that you should continue breathing normally during the test, either. "but maybe it's possible that some students might hold their breath during quant questions!" maybe indeed.

[gkumar]

thanks and nice joke in the end :)

[JonathanSchneider]

: )

[Mymisc]

Ron,

If (D) says "will not decrease" instead of "will not increase", can (D) become an assumption the stimulus depends on? This is like the weighted avg in your qunat lecture, right? Thank you!

[RonPurewal]

Ron,

If (D) says "will not decrease" instead of "will not increase", can (D) become an assumption the stimulus depends on?

correct.

you can prove this to yourself by trying out the reversal method (described above) on your newly generated assumption; if you reverse this new assumption, the validity of the passage is definitely destroyed.