Q18 - The chairperson of Acme

[samuelfbaron]

Here we have a necessary assumption question.

I think this question is the perfect example of how the negation test can provide the correct answer choice, as the credited response is very easy to negate.

Background: Chairperson of Acme moving company from Milltown to Oceanview.

Premise: Most people cannot afford housing within 30 mins of Oceanview.

Conclusion: Once in Oceanview, most employees will have to commute more than 30 mins.

So our goal is to find something that the arguments depends on, as you can see there is a logical gap between our premise and conclusion. We want to find answer that connects P-->C.

I will admit that when I first looked at this question I thought that the answer choice would be something like "most employees currently commute less than 30mins". I was focusing on the wrong part of the argument.

Anyways, here is a rundown of the answers:

(A) Irrelevant, we are moving to Oceanview, where employees live in Milltown has no bearing on the argument. This does not help us.
(B) This is irrelevant, out of scope.
(C) Out of scope.
(D) Currently, --> We don't care how far the employees employees are commuting in their present situation.

(E) The move will not be accompanied by a pay raise. I will admit, on my first rundown I thought that this was out of scope. However, when I applied the negation test --> The move WILL be accompanied by a pay raise. If that is the case then the argument falls apart as it destroy the Premise that they cannot afford to live within a 30 minute commute. If there wages are increased then perhaps they can!

Let me know if I'm missing anything.

[ohthatpatrick]

Great rundown.

Just to add a few tidbits,
(B) the "good financial reasons" is what makes it out of scope. This argument doesn't hinge on whether the reasons for moving are good or bad.

(C) the specific number of employees in favor vs. against the move is irrelevant. The argument only hinges on the length of commute they will face once the move is made.

On a quick scan of Necessary Assumption answer choices, I am super wary of anything with extreme/comparative language.

I am super tempted by anything with very weak language or "ruling out" language.

So on a quick first pass, I'd see
(A) "All" - red flag
(B) nothing jumps out
(C) "None" - red flag
(D) "most" - red flag
(E) "will not" - oooh, this could be tasty

To get yourself mentally ready for an answer like (E), it's helpful to adopt the Anti-Conclusion after you've read the argument.

I would prep my brain for the answer choices by asking, "How can I accept that most employees can't afford housing within 30 mins of OV, but still believe that once the company moves, most of have them will be able to have a commute of under 30 minutes?"

I don't know specifically what to predict, but I would think to myself that there are two potential openings for wiggle room:

1. Does "can't afford housing within 30" = "will not have a commute within 30"? I don't know. Maybe they'll crash at a friend's house who lives within 30 minutes and commute from there.

2. Will anything change once the company moves that is a gamechanger in terms of "affording housing"/"making a quicker commute"?

Nice work!

[Emily Madan]

PT68, S3, Q18 (Necessary Assumption)

(E) is correct

As a necessary assumption question, we have to find the argument core, then evaluate the answer choices to see if they are required for the conclusion to be possible. Our biggest tool here is the negation test.

Most Acme employees cannot afford
housing within a 30-minute commute
of Ocean View

--->

Once the company has moved to
Ocean View, most Acme employees
will have a commute of more than 30 minutes


This argument may seem sound at first because if most employees can’t live within 30 minutes of their workplace, then most employees will have a commute of more than 30 minutes. However, there’s a critical difference between the statement just made and the argument core. The argument is saying that because right now the employees can’t afford to live within 30 minutes Ocean View, they will still not be able to afford it after the company moves. We’re talking about two completely different time frames, and any number of things can change in between. What if there’s a complete restructuring of the company and new employees who live in Ocean View are hired? What if everyone gets a raise when the company moves, so now they can afford to live within half an hour of Ocean View? Though it’s difficult to predict the exact change, we should be aware that there are many situations that would make the employees able to afford to live close to Ocean View.
In answering a necessary assumption question, we need to find what is required to make the conclusion possible. In this case, we should look for anything that eliminates one (or more) options for making Ocean View housing more affordable for the employees.

(A) This directly contradicts the evidence. Eliminate it.

(B) The reasons for moving are irrelevant to the argument core. Eliminate it.

(C) Again, this has nothing to do with the argument core. We want something about affordability.

(D) This answer choice specifies something that will change between now and when the company moves. Let’s try the negation test. Negated, this answer says; "Currently, most Acme employees have a commute of more than 30 minutes." How does that affect their commute once the company moves to Ocean View? Short answer: it doesn’t. If it doesn’t affect the core, it can’t be the answer. Eliminate it.

(E) This answer choice says that one specific change will not happen. Because it’s comparing the then and now scenarios, let’s try the negation test. Negated, this says "Acme’s move to Ocean View will be accompanied by a significant pay raise for the Acme employees." What does this do to our argument core? It completely destroys the logic. If the employees get a pay raise, they may be able to afford housing within 30 minutes of Ocean View, so their commute may be less than 30 minutes. We absolutely cannot allow a pay raise if we want the logic of the argument to work. Thus, (E) is the right answer.

#officialexplanation

[mikuo0628]

I got this one right but upon reviewing, it got me thinking a bit more.

What if, even with the significant pay raise for Acme employees, they STILL CAN'T afford to live within 30-min of Ocean View?

If I understand assumption negation correctly, the negation will effectively destroy the argument; negating (E) doesn't necessary nail it down that at least some employees will now be able to afford it. I don't see how the premise "Most Acme employees cannot afford housing within 30-min..." is definitely affected, only that it's possible.

(E) is no doubt a strengthener. But shouldn't a required assumption be something like "Most Acme employees who cannot afford housing within 30-min commute of Ocean View are NOT REPLACED by people who can afford (or people who already live in 30-min of OV)."
Negating that assumption would definitely destroy the conclusion.

Thoughts?

[ShiyuF391]

I got this one right but upon reviewing, it got me thinking a bit more.

What if, even with the significant pay raise for Acme employees, they STILL CAN'T afford to live within 30-min of Ocean View?

If I understand assumption negation correctly, the negation will effectively destroy the argument; negating (E) doesn't necessary nail it down that at least some employees will now be able to afford it. I don't see how the premise "Most Acme employees cannot afford housing within 30-min..." is definitely affected, only that it's possible.

(E) is no doubt a strengthener. But shouldn't a required assumption be something like "Most Acme employees who cannot afford housing within 30-min commute of Ocean View are NOT REPLACED by people who can afford (or people who already live in 30-min of OV)."
Negating that assumption would definitely destroy the conclusion.

Thoughts?

I agree with you. E is definitely a strengthener, but I don't think it is somewhat required in any sense. If we negate it, that the move will be accompanied by a salary raise, still it is not guaranteed that Acme employees will be able to live in somewhere within 30-minute range. It seems to me that this answer is the correct one merely because this is the least worse one.