- Which of the following is an assumption underlying the official's claim?
Answer: Pedestrians are responsible for most litter that reaches storm drains in the downtown area.
When you encounter assumption questions on the GMAT, you're looking for an unstated premise that must be true for the argument to work. The city official argues that adding trash bins will solve flooding because storm drains clog with litter. This reasoning contains a logical gap you need to identify.
The correct answer is (C) because the official's solution assumes that pedestrians—not other sources like wind-blown debris, construction materials, or natural elements—are the primary cause of litter reaching storm drains. If most litter comes from sources other than pedestrians, then adding trash bins for pedestrian use wouldn't address the real problem. The argument depends on pedestrians being the main culprits for this solution to be effective.
Looking at the wrong answers: (A) focuses on cost-effectiveness, which isn't necessary for the argument about whether the solution will work—just whether it's worth implementing. (B) addresses bin maintenance, but the official's argument doesn't require this assumption since overflowing bins could still reduce street litter compared to having no bins. (D) mentions regulations, but existing anti-littering laws don't affect whether adding bins will reduce litter—people might follow rules better when disposal is convenient, regardless of current regulations.
Strategy tip: On assumption questions, use the "negation test"—if you negate the correct assumption, it should destroy the argument. If pedestrians aren't responsible for most litter (negating C), then adding pedestrian trash bins won't solve the flooding problem, which kills the official's argument.
- Which of the following is an assumption on which the city officials' argument depends?
Answer: Corporate sponsors will compete to buy the naming rights at a price sufficient to cover the city's construction costs.
This question tests your ability to identify necessary assumptions in arguments about cause and effect. When city officials claim their aquarium plan "will not burden local taxpayers," you need to find what must be true for their reasoning to work.
The officials' logic flows like this: a neighboring city used corporate naming rights to finance their aquarium, which now generates tourist revenue, so our identical financing method will similarly avoid burdening taxpayers. The critical gap here is whether corporate sponsors will actually pay enough to cover construction costs. If naming rights only generate partial funding, taxpayers would still face a burden, contradicting the officials' conclusion.
Choice B correctly identifies this assumption. Without corporate sponsors paying sufficient amounts to cover construction costs, the financing plan fails and taxpayers bear the remaining burden.
Choice A misses the mark because the argument doesn't require tourists to be "equally interested" in both aquariums. Even if fewer tourists visit, the argument only needs the aquarium to avoid taxpayer burden through corporate financing, not match the neighbor's exact revenue.
Choice C introduces an irrelevant comparison about what residents care about more. The argument's validity doesn't depend on residents' preferences between taxes and corporate naming.
Choice D incorrectly focuses on construction cost comparisons. The officials' argument works regardless of whether their aquarium costs more or less than the neighbor's, as long as corporate naming rights cover whatever the actual costs are.
Strategy tip: In assumption questions, look for gaps between the evidence and conclusion. The correct assumption will bridge that gap and be absolutely necessary for the argument to hold.
- Which of the following is an assumption underlying the consultant's recommendation?
Answer: Factors other than packaging, such as scent and price, are not the primary reasons for the perfume's decline in sales.
When you encounter assumption questions on the GMAT, you're looking for an unstated premise that must be true for the argument to work. The consultant's logic flows like this: packaging drives consumer decisions → changing to contemporary packaging → increased sales.
The correct answer is C because the consultant's recommendation only makes sense if packaging is indeed the main problem. If the perfume's declining sales stem primarily from other factors like an outdated scent, high price, or poor quality, then redesigning the bottle won't address the root cause. The consultant assumes that non-packaging factors aren't the primary culprits behind the sales decline.
Looking at the wrong answers: A addresses cost-benefit analysis, which is a practical consideration but not a logical assumption underlying the consultant's reasoning about consumer behavior. B suggests the new design will attract competitors' customers, but the consultant's argument works even if it only retains current customers or attracts entirely new ones. D focuses on trademark protection, which relates to long-term competitive advantage but isn't necessary for the basic premise that better packaging increases sales.
The key strategy for assumption questions is the "negation test" - if you negate the correct assumption, the argument should fall apart. If you negate C (suppose other factors ARE the primary reason for declining sales), then changing packaging becomes pointless, destroying the consultant's recommendation. Always look for the assumption that, if removed, makes the entire argument crumble.
- The agency's reasoning relies on which of the following assumptions?
Answer: Customers who would not otherwise buy expensive tours will decide to do so after purchasing travel insurance.
Critical reasoning questions on the GMAT often test your ability to identify unstated assumptions that connect evidence to conclusions. When you see an argument making a causal leap, look for what must be true for that reasoning to work.
The travel agency observes that customers who buy insurance also tend to book expensive tours, then concludes that promoting insurance will increase expensive tour sales. This reasoning assumes a specific causal relationship: that insurance somehow encourages expensive tour purchases. For this strategy to work, the agency must assume that customers who wouldn't normally buy expensive tours will change their behavior after getting insurance.
Answer D captures this essential assumption perfectly. If insurance doesn't influence customers' tour-buying decisions—if people who buy expensive tours simply happen to also buy insurance for other reasons—then promoting insurance won't boost expensive tour sales.
Let's examine why the other choices miss the mark. Choice A about competitor actions is irrelevant to whether the agency's internal strategy will work. Choice B discusses trip cancellation behavior, which doesn't address whether insurance promotion leads to expensive tour purchases. Choice C focuses on the profitability of selling insurance itself, but the agency's goal is increasing expensive tour sales, not insurance profits.
The key trap here is confusing correlation with causation. Just because two behaviors occur together doesn't mean one causes the other. On GMAT assumption questions, always ask: "What gap exists between the evidence and conclusion?" The answer will bridge that logical gap, making the argument's reasoning possible.
- The executive's reasoning depends on assuming that
Answer: the companies that employed humorous advertisements were comparable to the others in respects relevant to brand recall
When you encounter an assumption question in Critical Reasoning, you're looking for an unstated premise that the argument requires to be true. The executive observes that companies using humorous ads had higher brand-recall scores and concludes that humor is the most effective way to improve brand recall.
This reasoning has a crucial gap: it assumes the companies being compared are similar in all relevant ways except for their use of humor. If the companies using humorous ads were systematically different—perhaps they had larger advertising budgets, better creative teams, or were already well-established brands—then humor might not be the actual cause of the higher recall scores. Choice (B) captures this essential assumption that the comparison groups were comparable in respects relevant to brand recall.
Choice (A) goes too far by claiming humor is the "most effective" strategy, but the executive's conclusion already states this—it's not an underlying assumption. Choice (C) addresses future persistence of consumer preferences, but the executive's argument is based on past quarter data and doesn't require assumptions about the future. Choice (D) concerns cost considerations, which are irrelevant to the executive's claim about effectiveness in improving brand recall.
The key strategy for assumption questions is to identify what the argument takes for granted. Look for gaps between the evidence presented and the conclusion drawn. Often, as here, the gap involves assuming that a correlation indicates causation while ruling out alternative explanations. Ask yourself: "What must be true for this reasoning to work?"
- The economist's conclusion depends on assuming that
Answer: rural residents will adopt broadband service once it becomes affordable and accessible
When you encounter assumption questions on the GMAT, you're looking for an unstated premise that must be true for the argument to work. The economist argues that because countries with higher Internet penetration have stronger growth, expanding broadband to rural areas will accelerate Country X's economic growth.
The correct answer is (B) because the economist's reasoning contains a critical gap. The argument assumes that making broadband "affordable and accessible" will automatically translate into higher Internet penetration rates. But affordability and accessibility don't guarantee adoption. If rural residents don't actually use the broadband service once it's available, then Country X's overall Internet penetration won't increase, breaking the causal chain the economist relies on.
Choice (A) addresses implementation logistics, but the economist's conclusion about economic growth doesn't depend on how the expansion is financed. The argument would hold even if financing required trade-offs. Choice (C) reverses the causal relationship—the economist claims Internet penetration drives growth, not that growth drives Internet spending. Choice (D) focuses on business expertise, but the economist's argument is based purely on the correlation between Internet penetration and growth, without specifying how that growth occurs.
Remember that assumption questions often test whether you can spot gaps between evidence and conclusion. Look for missing links in the logical chain. Here, the economist jumps from "making broadband available" to "increased economic growth" without considering whether people will actually use what's being provided.
- The columnist's argument is based on which of the following assumptions?
Answer: The additional heat generated during fast-charging accelerates battery degradation more than ordinary use does.
When you encounter assumption questions on the GMAT, you're looking for an unstated premise that the argument depends on to reach its conclusion. The argument must fall apart if the assumption is false.
The columnist argues that fast-charging users will need battery replacements sooner because fast-charging generates more heat per cycle. But there's a logical gap here: just because fast-charging produces more heat doesn't automatically mean batteries will degrade faster. The argument assumes that this extra heat actually causes more damage.
Choice D captures this crucial assumption perfectly. The columnist's reasoning only works if the additional heat from fast-charging accelerates degradation beyond what normal charging does. Without this assumption, the argument crumbles—extra heat would be irrelevant if it didn't cause additional damage.
Choice A is incorrect because the argument concerns current battery behavior, not future technological improvements. The columnist's conclusion stands regardless of what might happen in the future.
Choice B misses the mark by focusing on usage patterns rather than the core mechanism. The argument is specifically about heat damage per charging cycle, not about how often people charge their phones.
Choice C is wrong because even if manufacturers do design batteries for fast-charging, the columnist could still be correct that heat causes some degree of accelerated wear.
Remember: assumption questions test whether you can identify the missing link between evidence and conclusion. Look for what must be true for the argument to work, then test each choice by asking "If this were false, would the argument still hold?"
- The administrator's argument presupposes which of the following?
Answer: Participation in music programs, rather than preexisting aptitude, is responsible for higher math scores.
When you encounter a "presupposes" question, you're looking for an unstated assumption that the argument depends on to be valid. The administrator observes a correlation between music participation and higher math scores, then concludes that mandatory music classes will raise average math scores.
The critical gap in this reasoning is assuming causation from correlation. The administrator's argument only works if music participation actually causes the higher math scores. If students who choose music programs simply have higher natural aptitude or come from more academically supportive backgrounds, then forcing all students into music won't replicate those results. Answer choice D captures this essential assumption—that participation itself, not preexisting factors, drives the performance difference.
Let's examine why the other choices miss the mark. Choice A focuses on grade-level consistency, but the argument doesn't require uniform effects across all grades to be valid. Choice B addresses budget concerns, which are irrelevant to whether the cause-and-effect relationship exists. Choice C considers student resentment, but this potential consequence doesn't address the fundamental assumption about what causes higher math scores.
The administrator's logic chain is: music participants score higher → mandatory music will raise scores. This only holds if music participation is the actual cause of improvement, not just correlated with it.
Strategy tip: In assumption questions, look for the logical gap between evidence and conclusion. Often on the GMAT, arguments confuse correlation with causation—always ask whether there could be alternative explanations for the observed relationship.
- Which of the following is an assumption made by the wildlife manager?
Answer: Pike introduced into Lake Z will preferentially prey on carp fry rather than on the fry of native fish species.
Assumption questions test your ability to identify unstated premises that must be true for an argument to work. The wildlife manager concludes that introducing pike will decrease carp numbers without threatening native species, but this reasoning has a critical gap.
The manager's logic relies on pike feeding on carp fry specifically, but the argument never establishes that pike will target carp rather than native fish. For the plan to work as intended, pike must preferentially prey on the invasive species rather than harming the native fish the manager wants to protect. This makes (D) correct – without this assumption, the entire strategy could backfire by reducing native fish populations instead.
Let's examine why the other options aren't necessary assumptions: (A) focuses on where carp reproduce and pike hunt, but the argument doesn't require any specific location for this predation to occur. The manager simply needs pike to eat carp fry somewhere in the lake. (B) addresses alternative removal methods, but the manager's argument stands regardless of whether netting is costly – introducing pike could be the preferred method for many reasons. (C) concerns predatory birds, but even if bird populations increased, this wouldn't invalidate the manager's core claim about pike reducing carp numbers.
When tackling assumption questions, use the "negation test": if you negate the correct assumption, the argument should fall apart. If pike don't preferentially target carp fry, the plan won't achieve its goals and could harm native species – exactly what the manager wants to avoid.
- The conclusion drawn above depends on which of the following assumptions?
Answer: The sales representatives who currently rely on printed materials will use the tablets as effectively as those already using them.
This question tests your ability to identify necessary assumptions in causal reasoning arguments. When an argument concludes that implementing a change will produce specific results, you need to find what must be true for that conclusion to hold.
The argument moves from "sales reps using tablets close 15% more deals" to "giving all reps tablets will raise overall sales by at least 15%." For this logic to work, the company must assume that the sales reps who aren't currently using tablets (those relying on printed materials) will achieve the same level of success with tablets as those already using them effectively. This is choice B.
Choice A is too extreme and unnecessary. The conclusion could still hold even if tablets aren't better in every single industry segment, as long as the overall effect reaches 15%. Choice C addresses cost-benefit analysis, but the argument's conclusion is purely about sales increases, not profitability. The assumption about costs isn't required for the stated conclusion to be valid. Choice D misses the point entirely—the argument is about equipping those who don't currently use tablets, not about whether current tablet users will continue their practice.
The key trap here is confusing what's practically wise (like cost considerations in C) with what's logically necessary for the argument's reasoning. Choice B identifies the critical gap: assuming that different groups of people will perform equally well with the same tool, which is essential for projecting the 15% increase company-wide.
Strategy tip: In assumption questions, focus on what must be true for the logic to work, not what would be smart business practice.
- The advocate's argument depends on which of the following assumptions?
Answer: Tailpipe emissions from gasoline cars are a major contributor to urban air pollution.
When you encounter an assumption question on the GMAT, you're looking for an unstated premise that the argument requires to be valid. The advocate argues that replacing gasoline cars with EVs will improve urban air quality because EVs have no tailpipe emissions.
The correct answer is C because the argument only works if tailpipe emissions actually matter for urban air quality. If gasoline cars' tailpipe emissions weren't a major contributor to urban air pollution, then eliminating them wouldn't "greatly improve" air quality. The advocate assumes this connection exists but never explicitly states it.
Let's examine why the other choices aren't necessary assumptions. Choice A addresses where electricity comes from, but the advocate's argument is specifically about tailpipe emissions versus no tailpipe emissions—the source of electricity doesn't affect whether eliminating tailpipe pollutants improves air quality. Choice B concerns consumer willingness to pay, but the argument assumes replacement will happen and focuses on the environmental consequence, not the economic feasibility. Choice D deals with battery disposal, which is irrelevant to the advocate's claim about tailpipe emissions and air quality.
Here's a useful test for assumption questions: try negating each answer choice and see if it destroys the argument. If you negate C (tailpipe emissions aren't a major contributor), the argument falls apart—removing a minor pollution source wouldn't greatly improve air quality. Negating the other choices doesn't break the core logic.
Remember: assumption questions ask what must be true for the argument to work, not what would strengthen it or make it more complete.
- The historian's conclusion depends on assuming that
Answer: the presence of town-hall meetings, rather than some other factor, was responsible for the adoption of public-health measures
This question tests your ability to identify necessary assumptions in causal reasoning. When an author claims that one thing caused another based on correlation, they must assume no alternative explanations exist.
The historian observes a correlation: regions with more town-hall meetings also adopted public-health measures faster. From this, they conclude the meetings caused the faster adoption. This is a classic correlation-to-causation argument that requires a crucial assumption.
Choice D captures this essential assumption perfectly. For the historian's causal conclusion to be valid, they must assume that town-hall meetings themselves—not some other factor—drove the health improvements. Without this assumption, alternative explanations could undermine the entire argument. Perhaps wealthier regions had both more meetings and better health infrastructure, or maybe more educated populations created both phenomena.
Choice A is incorrect because the historian doesn't need to assume other regions lacked advantages—only that meetings specifically caused the health improvements. Choice B misses the mark because meetings don't need to focus primarily on health; they could discuss health among other topics and still influence adoption. Choice C addresses data accuracy, which is important but not the core logical gap—even with perfect data, correlation doesn't prove causation.
When you encounter causal arguments on the GMAT, immediately ask: "What else could explain this relationship?" The correct assumption will typically eliminate alternative explanations or strengthen the proposed causal link between the two correlated phenomena.
- The marine biologist's argument assumes that
Answer: shade structures can lower water temperature around corals enough to reduce bleaching
When you encounter assumption questions on the GMAT, you're looking for an unstated premise that must be true for the argument to work. The argument here claims that shade structures will reverse coral bleaching damage because water temperature drives bleaching.
The correct answer is B because it identifies the critical gap in reasoning. The biologist jumps from "water temperature causes bleaching" to "shade structures will help" without establishing that shade structures actually reduce water temperature sufficiently. This connection isn't obvious—shade structures might not lower water temperature enough to matter, or might create other problems. For the argument to succeed, we must assume shade structures effectively reduce water temperature around corals.
Let's examine why the other choices don't work: A discusses the relative importance of other factors like pollution, but the argument already acknowledges temperature as the "principal" driver, making this comparison irrelevant to the core logic. C addresses funding availability, which is about implementation feasibility rather than whether the solution would work in principle. D focuses on community support, again addressing practical concerns rather than the logical connection between the proposed solution and the desired outcome.
Remember that assumption questions ask what must be true for the argument's logic to hold, not what would make the plan practically feasible. Focus on finding the missing link between the evidence presented and the conclusion drawn—often it's a gap about whether the proposed solution actually addresses the identified cause.
- The spokesperson's reasoning requires assuming that
Answer: the beta testers are representative of the broader commuter population with respect to factors influencing stress
When you encounter assumption questions, you're looking for unstated premises that must be true for the argument to work. The spokesperson concludes that a public launch will reduce stress citywide based on beta test results showing 30% less stress among users.
The correct answer is D because the argument fundamentally depends on the beta testers being similar to the general commuter population in relevant ways. If beta testers were unusually tech-savvy, had different commuting patterns, or differed in stress triggers compared to typical commuters, then their positive results wouldn't predict citywide success. The spokesperson treats the beta group as a reliable predictor for all commuters, which requires this representativeness assumption.
Choice A is wrong because the argument focuses on whether stress will be reduced, not on economic benefits. The spokesperson makes no claims about measurable economic impacts. Choice B identifies a potential implementation challenge, but the argument doesn't require this assumption—the spokesperson could be assuming data sharing will continue, or that alternative data sources exist. Choice C addresses smartphone ownership, but even if many commuters lack smartphones, the argument could still hold true for those who do have them. The spokesperson claims the app will lower stress "for commuters citywide," which doesn't require universal access.
Remember that assumption questions ask what must be true for the argument to succeed. Look for gaps between the evidence (beta results) and conclusion (citywide impact), then identify what unstated premise bridges that gap.
- The economist's argument relies on which of the following assumptions?
Answer: Most households can shift a significant portion of their electricity use to non-peak hours without major inconvenience.
When you encounter assumption questions in Critical Reasoning, you're looking for unstated premises that must be true for the argument to work. The economist concludes that time-of-use pricing will reduce peak demand because consumers are price-sensitive. But there's a logical gap: being price-sensitive doesn't automatically mean demand will drop unless consumers can actually change their behavior.
The correct answer is D because the argument fundamentally depends on households' ability to shift electricity usage to off-peak times. If most households cannot move significant electricity use away from early evening hours—perhaps because that's when they need lights, cook dinner, or run appliances—then price sensitivity alone won't reduce peak demand. The economist's conclusion requires this flexibility assumption to bridge the gap between "consumers respond to prices" and "peak demand will decrease."
A is wrong because the argument focuses specifically on household electricity use; commercial users are irrelevant to this reasoning. B addresses implementation logistics, but the economist's argument assumes the pricing scheme works as intended—technological capabilities aren't part of the core reasoning about consumer behavior. C raises an important social concern, but the economist's argument about demand reduction doesn't depend on equitable distribution of costs.
For assumption questions, use the "negation test": if you negate the correct assumption, the argument should fall apart. If households cannot shift usage (negating D), then time-of-use pricing won't reduce peak demand, destroying the economist's conclusion. Always look for the missing link that makes the conclusion logically follow from the premises.
- The director's projection depends on which assumption?
Answer: There remains unmet demand from visitors who can attend only on evenings other than the two currently offered.
When you encounter assumption questions on the GMAT, you're looking for an unstated premise that the argument absolutely requires to be true. The director's logic jumps from "evening hours twice a week increased attendance 20%" to "opening every evening will increase attendance at least another 20%."
This projection assumes there are people who want to visit on the five additional evenings but currently cannot. Without unmet demand on those other evenings, extending hours wouldn't attract new visitors—it would just redistribute existing evening visitors across more nights, potentially even reducing attendance per evening. Choice D captures this essential assumption: there must be unmet demand from people who can only attend on evenings other than the current two.
Choice A addresses competitive responses, but the director's argument doesn't require this assumption—the projection could still hold even if other museums extended hours. Choice B focuses on profitability rather than attendance levels, which isn't what the director is predicting. Choice C compares spending patterns between visitor types, but the argument only concerns attendance numbers, not revenue per visitor.
The director's reasoning fundamentally depends on the existence of a pool of potential evening visitors who are currently unable to attend, making D the necessary assumption.
Strategy tip: In assumption questions, ask yourself "What must be true for this conclusion to follow?" Often the correct answer will address a gap between the evidence presented and the conclusion drawn, as the argument typically takes a logical leap that requires an unstated premise.
- Which of the following must be assumed for the group's argument to hold?
Answer: Many borrowers currently default because they misunderstand complex mortgage terminology.
When you encounter assumption questions on the GMAT, you're looking for a statement that must be true for the argument to work. The argument here follows a simple causal chain: plain-language documents → better understanding → fewer defaults.
The consumer group's reasoning depends on a critical gap between complex language and borrower behavior. For their solution (plain-language documents) to address the problem (defaults), there must be a connection between language complexity and default rates. Choice B provides exactly this link by assuming that misunderstanding complex terminology actually causes defaults. Without this assumption, the entire argument collapses—if borrowers don't default due to misunderstanding terms, then clearer language won't reduce defaults.
Choice A addresses lender cooperation, but the argument is about whether plain language would reduce defaults, not whether lenders will implement it. Choice C focuses on regulatory enforcement, which is irrelevant to the causal relationship between understanding and default rates. The argument doesn't require uniform implementation to be valid. Choice D concerns legal enforceability, but the group's argument is about preventing defaults through better understanding, not about what happens in court after defaults occur.
The key strategy for assumption questions is to identify what unstated premise the argument requires to be logical. Look for the gap between evidence and conclusion—often the assumption bridges a causal relationship that the author takes for granted but hasn't explicitly stated.
- Which of the following is an assumption required by the chair's conclusion?
Answer: Collaboration causes papers to be accepted by higher-impact journals rather than merely correlating with such acceptance.
When you encounter assumption questions on the GMAT, you're looking for an unstated premise that must be true for the argument to hold. The chair observes a correlation (collaborators publish in higher-impact journals) and concludes that mandating collaboration will improve the department's overall impact.
The correct answer is C because the chair's argument requires a causal relationship between collaboration and higher journal impact. The chair jumps from observing that collaborators tend to publish in better journals to concluding that forcing collaboration will improve outcomes. This logic only works if collaboration actually causes the improved publication quality, rather than just being associated with it. If collaboration merely correlates with higher impact (perhaps because only already-successful researchers choose to collaborate), then mandating collaboration won't necessarily improve the department's average.
Here's why the other choices fail: A is tempting but unnecessary—even if current high-impact publishers reduce output, the overall average could still rise if enough solo researchers improve. B addresses implementation challenges but isn't required for the logical validity of the conclusion itself. D introduces funding considerations that aren't necessary for the chair's reasoning about journal impact.
The key trap here is confusing necessary conditions with sufficient ones. While A, B, and D might help the plan succeed practically, only C addresses the fundamental logical gap in the chair's reasoning.
Strategy tip: In assumption questions, ask yourself "What unstated belief must the author hold for this conclusion to follow logically?" Focus on logical gaps, not practical implementation details.
- The analyst's projection relies on which of the following assumptions?
Answer: Natural-gas combustion produces substantially less carbon dioxide per kilowatt-hour than coal combustion does.
Critical reasoning questions that ask for assumptions require you to identify what the argument takes for granted but doesn't explicitly state. An assumption is a missing piece that must be true for the argument to work.
The analyst's argument follows this logic: Low natural gas prices → power plants switch from coal to gas → carbon dioxide emissions decline. For this conclusion to hold, the analyst must assume that natural gas actually produces fewer emissions than coal. If natural gas produced the same or more carbon dioxide per unit of electricity, then switching fuels wouldn't reduce emissions at all—it might even increase them.
Choice B identifies this crucial assumption. The entire argument hinges on natural gas being cleaner than coal, but the analyst never explicitly states this fact. Without this assumption, the conclusion collapses.
Choice A is incorrect because even if electricity demand grows faster than coal plant replacement, emissions could still decline if the remaining coal plants are the smallest ones or if natural gas is much cleaner. Choice C misses the mark—stricter coal regulations might accelerate the trend but aren't necessary for the analyst's prediction to occur. Choice D addresses supply concerns but doesn't affect the core logic about emissions reduction; even with some price volatility, the fundamental emission differences between fuels would remain.
When tackling assumption questions, use the negation test: if you negate the correct assumption, the argument should fall apart. Negating B (natural gas produces equal or more emissions than coal) completely undermines the analyst's conclusion, confirming it's the essential missing piece.
- The recruiter's conclusion depends on assuming that
Answer: applicants who choose to take the optional assessment are similar to those who do not, aside from their decision to take it
When you encounter assumption questions in GMAT Critical Reasoning, you're looking for an unstated premise that the argument requires to be true. The recruiter observes that voluntary test-takers get 40% more job offers and concludes that mandatory testing will help identify more high-caliber candidates.
The critical flaw here is that the recruiter treats voluntary participants as representative of all applicants. The argument assumes that the people who choose to take the optional assessment are essentially the same as those who don't, except for their decision about the test. If this weren't true—if voluntary test-takers were already stronger candidates who self-selected—then the 40% statistic wouldn't predict what happens with mandatory testing.
Choice B correctly identifies this assumption. Without it, the argument falls apart because the higher success rate might simply reflect that better candidates choose to take the test, not that the test itself identifies quality.
Choice A is tempting but goes too far—the argument could work even if the assessment measured the wrong things, as long as both groups were similar. Choice C addresses a potential practical problem but isn't required for the logical connection between premise and conclusion. Choice D focuses on cost-effectiveness, which isn't necessary for the recruiter's reasoning about identifying candidates.
Watch for this pattern: when an argument extrapolates from a self-selected group to a broader population, look for assumptions about the similarity between those groups. Self-selection bias is a common logical flaw on the GMAT.
