CR: The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vern

[cesar.rodriguez.blanco]

Source: gmat prep
Why C is correct, and the other choices not????

The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a droip in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.

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

A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.

B. Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.

C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.

D. The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.

E. The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years

[sunny.jain]

Well, C is actually not a very good option, but i think it is the best option to choose from.

One thing you can always use while solving Such CR's.
If Paragraph talks about numbers , you should think in % or proportion and Vice versa.

Coming to this CR:

Borodia sells 2 types of television: TV from veronica + TV assembled in Borodia.

TV from V + TV from B = constant.

Fact : Assembler of B has decreased.
Conclusion : so TV from V has increased.

Assumption : TV from B should have strong relation with number of assembler.

A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
-->Well nothing has been given in the passage the import from Vernland depend upon their production. so this is Irrelevant.
B) --> Out of Scope
C) means Still same hours are required to assemble same number of television, so if assemblers drops, production will decrease.
But again the only suspect here : What if they start working more ? means total production hours increases. so This may or may not be the answer.

D) Well nothing has been given in the passage the import from Vernland depend upon their production. so this is Irrelevant.

E) Talking about future, so out of scope.

As none of other option is good. so C is most close. Hence its the answer.

[RonPurewal]

Source: beatthegmat
Why C is correct, and the other choices not????

The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a droip in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.

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

A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.

B. Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.

C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.

D. The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.

E. The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years

this is a gmatprep problem, so we're cool on the source. beatthegmat is not a source; it's a forum where all material is posted secondhand.

this is a good problem to which to apply the REVERSAL METHOD for assumptions:
* REVERSE the assumption
* the argument should be DESTROYED

the argument assumes that not as many televisions are being made domestically in borodia. (this is why they will have to import more.)

if we reverse (c), then the assemblers can put together TV's faster than before.
this means that FEWER of them will be able to make the SAME TOTAL NUMBER of televisions.
this severs the connection between the drop in the number of assemblers and the drop in the number of televisions produced, so the argument falls apart.
(c) is the answer.

[william.h.shu]

I'm still a bit confused on this one. Isn't C ignoring the possibility that whilst Borodia televisions sold remain the same and the television assemblers in Borodia have decreased, overall televisions manufactured in Borodia have increased, due to increased exports to other countries? In that case, the average time would have decreased.

Source: beatthegmat
Why C is correct, and the other choices not????

The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a droip in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.

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

A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.

B. Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.

C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.

D. The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.

E. The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years

this is a gmatprep problem, so we're cool on the source. beatthegmat is not a source; it's a forum where all material is posted secondhand.

this is a good problem to which to apply the REVERSAL METHOD for assumptions:
* REVERSE the assumption
* the argument should be DESTROYED

the argument assumes that not as many televisions are being made domestically in borodia. (this is why they will have to import more.)

if we reverse (c), then the assemblers can put together TV's faster than before.
this means that FEWER of them will be able to make the SAME TOTAL NUMBER of televisions.
this severs the connection between the drop in the number of assemblers and the drop in the number of televisions produced, so the argument falls apart.
(c) is the answer.

[RonPurewal]

I'm still a bit confused on this one. Isn't C ignoring the possibility that whilst Borodia televisions sold remain the same and the television assemblers in Borodia have decreased, overall televisions manufactured in Borodia have increased, due to increased exports to other countries? In that case, the average time would have decreased.

that's not how the reversal method works.

when you reverse an assumption, all that's necessary is that the integrity of the argument be destroyed.
you don't need to create a situation in which the conclusion can no longer be true at all; you just need to create a situation in which this argument doesn't prove the conclusion anymore.

your "counterexample" is investigating the truth of the conclusion through a completely different line of argument, and is therefore irrelevant to the problem at hand.

[THANU.KG]

Why would B not work?

If the television features of B is different from V, and the conclusion is B imports annually from V has increased, this could be the reason why the B's assemblers have decreased because they do not know how to assemble V's televisions?

If i reverse B, then --> televisions assembled in V have the same features that television assembled in B have.
Then the arguement is no longer valid to explain why B's assemblers decreased.

[jlucero]

Why would B not work?

If the television features of B is different from V, and the conclusion is B imports annually from V has increased, this could be the reason why the B's assemblers have decreased because they do not know how to assemble V's televisions?

If i reverse B, then --> televisions assembled in V have the same features that television assembled in B have.
Then the arguement is no longer valid to explain why B's assemblers decreased.

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

Your response: This could be the reason why the B's assemblers have decreased.

Your explanation requires a lot of jumps in logic. If I said I am going to be a millionaire tomorrow, the assumption is not that I am going to win the lottery tonight even though that COULD happen. Maybe I have a rich dying uncle.

Fact #1: # of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed
Fact #2: There are fewer tv assemblers in Borodia
Conclusion: We must import more televisions

Assumption: In order for the conclusion to hold up, we need to make sure that fewer assemblers does not equal fewer televisions being made. If these assemblers can make televisions in "significantly" fewer hours, then we would not need to import more TVs. If tvs in Vernland have or do not have different features than the ones made in Borodia, we have no idea if we are importing more tvs.

[dhlee922]

Source: beatthegmat
Why C is correct, and the other choices not????

The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a droip in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.

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

A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.

B. Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.

C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.

D. The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.

E. The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years

this is a gmatprep problem, so we're cool on the source. beatthegmat is not a source; it's a forum where all material is posted secondhand.

this is a good problem to which to apply the REVERSAL METHOD for assumptions:
* REVERSE the assumption
* the argument should be DESTROYED

the argument assumes that not as many televisions are being made domestically in borodia. (this is why they will have to import more.)

if we reverse (c), then the assemblers can put together TV's faster than before.
this means that FEWER of them will be able to make the SAME TOTAL NUMBER of televisions.
this severs the connection between the drop in the number of assemblers and the drop in the number of televisions produced, so the argument falls apart.
(c) is the answer.

i understand the argument and explanation, but when it comes to problems like this, which way is the reversal supposed to go? for answer choice C, how do you reverse it. C states "not decreased..." so is the reversal "decreased" or should it be "increased"? to me, both seem to be logical reversals of "not decreased" and depending on which one you choose, it could affect the outcome

[jlucero]

There's probably not one, perfect answer to your question, but very often, you can take the main verb of the sentence and put a not in front of it, or otherwise try to find its opposite. I agree that you have to be careful here, but remember that the opposite of something happening is not something different happening, but just that the first event did not happen. For example, the opposite of a company losing money is not the company gaining money, but that is simply is NOT losing money.

[dhlee922]

There's probably not one, perfect answer to your question, but very often, you can take the main verb of the sentence and put a not in front of it, or otherwise try to find its opposite. I agree that you have to be careful here, but remember that the opposite of something happening is not something different happening, but just that the first event did not happen. For example, the opposite of a company losing money is not the company gaining money, but that is simply is NOT losing money.

that actually helps a lot and explains it. thank you!

[tim]

Glad to hear it!

[saurav.ku205]

I am still not able to understand how option C is correct.

When I negate C I get " average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has decreased significantly during the past 3 years"

So it takes them longer to assemble a television now. Also it stated in the passage that the number of assemblers in Borodia has decreased. So we can infer that they are making less television now. Hence the need to import televisions as the number of tv sold has not changed.

Where did I go wrong?

[saurav.ku205]

I am still not able to understand how option C is correct.

When I negate C I get " average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has decreased significantly during the past 3 years"

So it takes them longer to assemble a television now. Also it stated in the passage that the number of assemblers in Borodia has decreased. So we can infer that they are making less television now. Hence the need to import televisions as the number of tv sold has not changed.

Where did I go wrong?

I got my mistake now. if the time has decreased then they are able to assemble televisions faster (and not slower) than before.

[RonPurewal]

yeah, watch it with that.

on a test, it's surprisingly easy to make mistakes like that one -- mistakes that you would never make in the real world.
the solution is to walk into the testing room with the same sort of real-world common sense that you'd employ while reading the newspaper, or talking with friends, or whatever.

in fact, as soon as you realize that critical reasoning is not "academic" at all (and that "academic" thinking is an incredibly harmful influence when you're trying to solve CR problems), you are about 75% of the way there.

[saurav.ku205]

yeah, watch it with that.

on a test, it's surprisingly easy to make mistakes like that one -- mistakes that you would never make in the real world.
the solution is to walk into the testing room with the same sort of real-world common sense that you'd employ while reading the newspaper, or talking with friends, or whatever.

in fact, as soon as you realize that critical reasoning is not "academic" at all (and that "academic" thinking is an incredibly harmful influence when you're trying to solve CR problems), you are about 75% of the way there.

I agree with you Ron..I have been making a lot of these mistakes and its affecting my mock scores as well..With just 15 more days to go I have no idea how I will manage to curb these kinds of silly errors.