- The managers' reasoning depends on which of the following assumptions?
Answer: People who currently avoid coffee because of its caffeine content are willing to try a decaffeinated blend rather than choose non-coffee beverages they already purchase.
When tackling assumption questions on the GMAT, you need to identify what unstated belief must be true for the argument to work. The managers conclude that a new decaffeinated blend will boost total coffee sales by attracting caffeine-avoiders.
The correct answer is D because it identifies the critical gap in this reasoning. The managers assume that people who currently avoid coffee due to caffeine will actually be willing to try their decaffeinated option. Without this assumption, their entire plan falls apart—if caffeine-avoiders simply aren't interested in coffee at all (even decaffeinated), then the new blend won't attract any new customers.
Here's why the other choices miss the mark: Choice A addresses whether existing customers will maintain their purchasing habits, but this isn't necessary for the conclusion. Even if some current customers switch to decaf, total sales could still increase if enough new customers are attracted. Choice B focuses on competitive pricing, but the argument doesn't depend on price comparisons—it's specifically about attracting people who avoid coffee due to caffeine, regardless of price. Choice C deals with supply chain logistics, which is operationally important but irrelevant to whether the strategy will actually boost sales.
For assumption questions, use the negation test: if you negate the correct assumption, it should destroy the argument. If people who avoid coffee due to caffeine are not willing to try decaf, then the managers' plan cannot succeed.
- The adviser's statement relies on assuming that
Answer: adding international stocks does not increase exposure to currency-exchange risk enough to offset the benefits of diversification
When you encounter assumption questions in GMAT Critical Reasoning, you're looking for an unstated premise that the argument requires to be true. The adviser claims that adding international stocks will "always" lower portfolio risk due to imperfect correlation between countries' returns.
The adviser's reasoning has a gap: while diversification through uncorrelated assets does reduce some risks, international investing introduces new risks, particularly currency exchange risk. When you invest internationally, currency fluctuations can significantly impact your returns regardless of how the underlying stocks perform. For the adviser's claim that international diversification "always" reduces risk to hold true, the benefits of diversification must outweigh any additional risks introduced.
Choice A correctly identifies this assumption. The adviser must assume that currency exchange risk doesn't increase portfolio risk enough to cancel out diversification benefits.
Choice B is incorrect because the argument isn't about future performance superiority—it's about risk reduction through diversification. Choice C misses the mark because transaction costs, while relevant to profitability, don't address the core claim about risk reduction. Choice D assumes something about investors' current holdings that the adviser never suggests; the argument would work regardless of existing portfolio composition.
Remember that assumption questions often involve identifying what must be true for an argument's logic to work, especially when the conclusion seems overly broad. Look for gaps between the evidence presented and the strength of the conclusion—words like "always" should make you particularly alert to unstated conditions.
- The clinic's advertisement assumes that
Answer: reductions in stress achieved through mindfulness are substantial enough to improve concentration noticeably
When analyzing argument assumptions on the GMAT, you're looking for unstated premises that must be true for the conclusion to logically follow. The clinic's argument flows: mindfulness reduces stress → lower stress improves concentration → participants become more productive.
The correct answer is B because this assumption is essential for the argument's logic. The clinic claims that mindfulness will increase productivity through stress reduction and improved concentration. However, the argument never establishes that the stress reduction achieved through mindfulness will be meaningful enough to actually improve concentration. If mindfulness only reduces stress by tiny, imperceptible amounts, then the promised productivity gains wouldn't materialize. For the argument to work, the stress reduction must be substantial enough to create noticeable concentration improvements.
Choice A is incorrect because the argument doesn't require practice outside class—even if participants only practiced during sessions, the stress reduction and productivity benefits could still occur. Choice C fails because the argument is about whether participants will actually become more productive, not whether employers will notice or reward it. Choice D is wrong because the argument doesn't assume participants currently have stress problems—the course could work even for people with normal stress levels by reducing them further.
Remember that assumption questions require you to identify what must be true for the argument to work, not what would strengthen it or what seems plausible. Look for gaps between the premises and conclusion—here, the gap was whether mindfulness creates sufficient stress reduction to meaningfully impact concentration.
- Which of the following is an assumption required by the blogger's contention?
Answer: Travelers who take overnight trains would have otherwise booked a hotel room instead of staying with friends or family.
When you encounter assumption questions on GMAT Verbal, you're looking for an unstated premise that must be true for the argument to work. The blogger argues that overnight trains are more cost-effective than flying because train tickets are cheaper AND eliminate hotel costs.
The correct answer is A because the blogger's entire argument hinges on the assumption that travelers would actually incur hotel costs if they flew instead of taking the train. If travelers typically stay with friends, family, or use other free accommodations, then the "eliminated hotel cost" provides no savings advantage. Without this assumption, the cost comparison falls apart—you can't claim to save money on hotels if travelers wouldn't have paid for hotels anyway.
Let's examine why the other options aren't required assumptions: B is incorrect because even if airlines occasionally offer promotional fares, the blogger could still be right about the general cost-effectiveness of trains. The argument allows for exceptions. C is wrong because the quality of rest on trains doesn't affect the cost comparison—the argument is purely financial. D is irrelevant because the blogger doesn't need to assume anything about airport availability; the argument already presupposes that both travel options exist for comparison.
Strategy tip: In assumption questions, use the "negation test"—if you negate the correct assumption, it should destroy the argument. Negating A (travelers wouldn't have booked hotels anyway) completely undermines the blogger's cost savings claim, confirming it's the necessary assumption.
- The columnist's conclusion depends on assuming that
Answer: other common behaviors, such as exposure to high temperatures, do not cause more battery degradation than overnight charging does
When you encounter an "assumption" question in GMAT Critical Reasoning, you're looking for an unstated premise that the argument requires to be true. The columnist argues that overnight charging causes battery degradation, so unplugging when fully charged will extend battery life.
The correct answer is D because the columnist's recommendation only makes sense if overnight charging is actually a primary cause of degradation. If other factors like heat exposure cause significantly more damage than overnight charging, then focusing on unplugging behavior wouldn't meaningfully extend battery life. The argument assumes that overnight charging is indeed a major culprit worth addressing.
Choice A might seem tempting since it relates to overnight charging duration, but the argument doesn't depend on how long phones stay plugged in after reaching full charge—just that overnight charging itself is problematic. Choice B about third-party cables is irrelevant to the core argument about charging duration versus unplugging timing. Choice C addresses practical concerns about whether users would have enough charging time, but this doesn't affect whether the columnist's causal claim is valid—it's about feasibility, not logical necessity.
The key strategy for assumption questions is the "negation test": if you negate the correct assumption, the argument should fall apart. If you negate D (other behaviors cause much more degradation than overnight charging), then the columnist's advice becomes pointless, destroying the argument. Watch for assumptions that address potential alternative causes or fill logical gaps between evidence and conclusion.
- The argument depends on the assumption that
Answer: shoppers who currently use single-use plastic bags would not start discarding other kinds of plastic packaging at higher rates once the ban is in place
When you encounter GMAT assumption questions, you're looking for a necessary condition—something that must be true for the argument to work. The argument here claims that banning plastic bags will substantially reduce plastic in landfills.
The correct answer is A because it identifies a critical gap in the reasoning. The argument assumes people won't simply substitute other plastic waste when bags are banned. If shoppers started throwing away more plastic containers, packaging, or other plastic items after the ban, the total plastic reduction could be minimal or nonexistent. This assumption is necessary—without it, the conclusion falls apart.
Let's examine why the other choices fail: B discusses production waste rather than landfill waste, which is irrelevant to the argument's focus on what ends up in local landfills. C about bulk containers is also irrelevant—the availability of multi-use containers doesn't affect whether banning single-use bags reduces landfill plastic. D addresses landfill operations, but whether materials are separated before burial doesn't impact the total amount of plastic entering the landfill, which is what the argument concerns.
Notice how A directly challenges the core logic: will the ban actually reduce total plastic waste, or will people just dispose of different plastic items instead? This behavioral assumption is essential to the argument's success.
Strategy tip: On assumption questions, look for gaps between the evidence and conclusion. The correct answer often addresses potential alternative explanations or unintended consequences that could undermine the argument's logic.
- The advocate's argument depends on which of the following assumptions?
Answer: Differences in inactive ingredients do not affect the way patients absorb the active ingredients.
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 advocate's reasoning follows this logic: generic drugs have the same active ingredients as brand-name drugs, therefore patients will have identical therapeutic outcomes.
The correct answer is A because it identifies a crucial gap in this reasoning. The advocate focuses only on active ingredients being the same, but completely ignores inactive ingredients. If inactive ingredients could affect how the body absorbs or processes the active ingredients, then having identical active ingredients wouldn't guarantee identical outcomes. For the argument to hold, we must assume that these inactive ingredient differences don't matter—which is exactly what choice A states.
Choice B is wrong because the advocate's argument isn't about why physicians prescribe certain drugs, but about therapeutic outcomes when patients switch. Choice C incorrectly focuses on insurance coverage, which is irrelevant to whether therapeutic outcomes will be identical. Choice D addresses patient compliance with dosage instructions, but the advocate's argument assumes proper usage in both cases—the claim is that identical active ingredients lead to identical results, not that patient behavior affects outcomes.
Remember that assumption questions often test whether you can spot what the author takes for granted. Look for gaps between the evidence presented and the conclusion drawn. Here, the evidence (same active ingredients) doesn't fully support the conclusion (identical outcomes) without assuming that other factors don't interfere.
- The council member's argument depends on which of the following assumptions?
Answer: Traffic congestion caused by automobiles will not increase in the lanes freed up by the faster express buses.
When you encounter assumption questions, you're looking for an unstated premise that must be true for the argument to work. The council member argues that express lanes will reduce commute times for all bus riders because express buses will move faster and free up road space for local buses.
The correct answer is B because the argument's logic breaks down if traffic congestion increases in the freed-up lanes. The council member assumes that when express buses move to dedicated lanes, the remaining lanes will actually provide better conditions for local buses. If car traffic immediately fills that space and creates new congestion, local buses won't benefit from any freed-up road space, undermining the claim that all riders will see reduced commute times.
Choice A is tempting but incorrect—even if most riders prefer local stops, the argument could still work if express buses free up enough space for local buses to move faster. Choice C misses the point; driver compliance doesn't affect whether the road space logic works. Choice D addresses funding concerns that aren't relevant to the core assumption about traffic flow and road space utilization.
The key trap here is confusing what would make the plan effective versus what the argument assumes. While factors like rider preferences (A) or funding (D) might affect the plan's success, they're not necessary assumptions for this specific logical chain about road space and timing.
Strategy tip: In assumption questions, use the negation test—if negating an answer choice would destroy the argument, you've found the assumption.
- The utility company's claim depends on which of the following assumptions?
Answer: LED lamps provide illumination levels at least equal to those provided by the conventional streetlights being replaced.
When you encounter assumption questions on the GMAT, you're looking for a statement that must be true for the argument to work. The utility company argues that LED streetlights will cut electricity consumption by 50% "without compromising public safety." This safety claim is crucial to the argument's logic.
The correct answer is A because the utility's claim inherently assumes that LED lamps maintain adequate illumination for public safety. If LED lamps provided significantly less light than conventional streetlights, public safety would indeed be compromised, making the entire claim false. The company cannot simultaneously promise both energy savings and uncompromised safety unless the LED technology maintains at least equivalent lighting levels.
Let's examine why the other options aren't necessary assumptions:
B addresses maintenance costs, but the argument only claims reduced electricity consumption—it doesn't promise overall cost savings, so maintenance costs are irrelevant to this specific claim.
C suggests residents might add private lighting, but even if they did, this wouldn't affect the city's streetlight electricity consumption, which is what the utility specifically measured.
D focuses on electricity rates remaining constant, but even if rates changed, the 50% reduction in consumption would still occur—the utility could still deliver on its promise of cutting the city's streetlight electricity usage by half.
Strategy tip: In assumption questions, focus on gaps between the evidence and conclusion. Here, the gap was between "energy reduction" and "no safety compromise"—the missing link was equivalent illumination levels.
- The director's argument relies on which of the following assumptions?
Answer: Most patrons with only a few items will prefer self-checkout to waiting in line for a staff member.
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 director's logic is: self-checkout machines → patrons with few items use them → reduced wait times for everyone.
The correct answer is B because the director's entire plan depends on patrons with few items actually choosing to use the self-checkout machines. If these patrons don't prefer self-checkout and continue waiting in the regular line, then the wait time problem persists unchanged. The argument assumes behavioral change will occur.
Let's examine why the other choices aren't necessary assumptions:
A is incorrect because the director's argument doesn't require self-checkout to be faster for people with many items. The plan specifically targets patrons with few items using self-checkout, creating separate lines based on volume.
C is incorrect because staff availability for troubleshooting, while potentially helpful, isn't essential to the core argument about reducing wait times through line separation. The argument could work even without dedicated staff support.
D is incorrect because machine visibility, though practically useful, isn't a logical requirement of the argument. The director's reasoning about wait time reduction doesn't depend on placement or visibility.
Remember this pattern: assumption questions often hinge on whether people will actually behave as the argument expects them to. Look for gaps between "if we build it" and "they will come" - the missing link is frequently about human behavior and preferences.
- The proposal's reasoning is based on which of the following assumptions?
Answer: Students and faculty will not respond to the change by printing additional copies of documents to compensate for any perceived reduction in readability.
When you encounter assumption questions on the GMAT, you're looking for unstated premises that must be true for the argument to work. The argument here claims that switching to double-sided printing will cut paper consumption in half—a very specific mathematical prediction.
The correct answer is B because this assumption is essential to the argument's logic. If students and faculty compensate for perceived readability issues by printing extra copies, the paper savings would be reduced or eliminated entirely. The administration's claim that consumption will be cut "in half" depends on people not changing their printing behavior in response to the format change.
Let's examine why the other choices aren't necessary assumptions. Choice A is incorrect because the argument works regardless of page length—whether documents are one page or fifty pages, double-sided printing would still reduce paper usage. Choice C focuses on printing speed, but the argument is about paper consumption, not efficiency or user satisfaction. Even if double-sided printing were slower, it would still save paper. Choice D addresses maintenance costs, which is irrelevant to the core claim about paper reduction. Higher maintenance costs wouldn't affect whether paper consumption decreases.
The key strategy for assumption questions is to ask: "What must be true for this conclusion to follow?" Often, the correct assumption addresses potential alternative explanations or behavioral responses that could undermine the argument. Look for assumptions that prevent the argument from falling apart, especially those involving human behavior or unintended consequences.
- Which of the following must be true for the board's plan to be effective in the way intended?
Answer: Alumni base their donation decisions, at least in part, on perceptions of the college's academic rigor.
This question tests your ability to identify necessary assumptions in a logical argument. When analyzing any plan or strategy, you need to find what must be true for the plan to work as intended.
The board's reasoning follows this chain: raise admission standards → improve academic reputation → attract more alumni donations. For this plan to succeed, there must be a connection between academic reputation and alumni giving behavior.
Choice B is correct because it establishes the crucial link in the board's logic. If alumni don't base donation decisions on their perceptions of academic rigor, then improving the college's academic reputation (even if successful) won't lead to increased donations. This assumption is absolutely necessary for the plan to work.
Choice A is incorrect because it addresses student choice behavior, which isn't relevant to whether the plan will increase alumni donations. Whether rejected students would have chosen Northton doesn't affect the reputation-donation connection.
Choice C is wrong because other institutions' actions don't determine whether Northton's plan will work. Even if competitors also raise standards, Northton could still improve its reputation and attract more donations relative to its current baseline.
Choice D focuses on investment strategy for donations that haven't been received yet. How the college manages future donations is irrelevant to whether the plan will actually generate those donations in the first place.
Remember: when you see "must be true for the plan to be effective," look for the assumption that bridges the logical gap in the argument. Identify what the plan assumes about cause and effect.
- Which of the following is a necessary assumption underlying the strategist's contention?
Answer: Younger audiences pay sufficient attention to advertisements they encounter on social media to influence their purchasing decisions.
When you encounter a "necessary assumption" question, you're looking for something the argument absolutely must assume to be true for the conclusion to follow logically. The strategist concludes that social media advertising will reach younger audiences "more efficiently" than TV ads because young people spend more time online.
The correct answer is A because it identifies a critical gap in the reasoning. The strategist assumes that simply reaching younger audiences (through their online presence) translates to effective marketing. However, if younger audiences ignore social media ads or don't let them influence purchases, then the campaign wouldn't be efficient at all, regardless of how much time they spend online. The argument requires assuming that the ads will actually capture meaningful attention.
Answer B is incorrect because cost efficiency isn't the same as overall efficiency—the strategist could be right about reaching audiences better even if social media costs more per viewer. Answer C introduces unnecessary complexity about comparative rates of change; the argument only requires that young people currently spend more time online, not specific trends. Answer D addresses market saturation, but the strategist's basic claim about reaching audiences more efficiently could still hold true even in a crowded advertising space.
Remember that necessary assumptions often bridge gaps between evidence and conclusion. Ask yourself: "What must be true for this argument to work?" Here, reaching an audience means nothing if that audience isn't receptive to the message.
- The researchers' conclusion depends on assuming that
Answer: no other animal species pollinate the affected tree species as effectively as the fruit bats do
This is a classic critical reasoning question testing your ability to identify necessary assumptions in causal arguments. When researchers conclude that fruit bats are "necessary pollinators" based on fewer seedlings where bats have disappeared, you need to find what assumption makes their logic work.
The researchers observe a correlation (fewer bats = fewer seedlings) and conclude causation (bats are necessary for pollination). For this conclusion to hold, they must assume that no other animals can effectively replace the bats' pollinating role. If other creatures could pollinate just as well, then the bats wouldn't be "necessary," and something else must explain the seedling shortage.
Choice A captures this essential assumption perfectly. Without assuming that other pollinators are less effective than fruit bats, the researchers can't conclude the bats are necessary.
Choice B is tempting but backwards - it suggests the trees' decline caused the bats' disappearance, which would actually weaken rather than support the researchers' conclusion. Choice C confuses pollination with seed dispersal, which are different processes entirely. While seed dispersal affects where seeds end up, pollination determines whether seeds form in the first place. Choice D about seedling growth rates is irrelevant to the pollination argument.
On assumption questions, look for what must be true for the conclusion to follow logically. Often the correct answer addresses potential alternative explanations that would undermine the author's reasoning. If you can think "but what if..." about the argument, the assumption likely addresses that gap.
- The merchant's argument depends on assuming that
Answer: no chemical reactions other than tannin softening occur during decanting that would negatively affect the wine's taste
When you encounter assumption questions on the GMAT, you're looking for an unstated premise that the argument requires to be true. The argument must depend on this assumption—without it, the logic falls apart.
The merchant concludes that decanting young red wines "always improves their taste" based solely on the fact that air exposure softens harsh tannins. For this reasoning to work, the merchant must assume that tannin softening is the only relevant effect of decanting. If other chemical reactions during aeration could harm the wine's taste, then decanting might not always improve it, even if tannins do soften.
Choice B captures this essential assumption: the merchant assumes no other negative taste effects occur during decanting. Without this assumption, the conclusion that decanting "always" improves taste cannot be supported.
Choice A is incorrect because the argument focuses on tannin softening specifically, not broader flavor perceptions from aeration. Choice C misses the point—the argument is about whether decanting always helps young wines, not about comparing young versus old wines. Choice D addresses temperature effects, but the merchant's reasoning is based entirely on chemical changes (tannin softening), not temperature considerations.
Remember that assumption questions ask what must be true for the argument to work. Look for gaps between the evidence and conclusion—the correct answer will fill a logical hole that's necessary for the argument's validity. The word "always" in conclusions is particularly demanding and often requires strong assumptions.
- Which of the following must be assumed for the official's claim to be credible?
Answer: Diners who see calorie information will choose lower-calorie options in sufficient numbers to affect average caloric intake.
When you encounter GMAT assumption questions, you're looking for a statement that must be true for the argument to work. The argument here creates a logical chain: calorie labeling → fewer calories consumed → reduced obesity rates.
The correct answer is A because it identifies the critical gap in this reasoning. The official assumes that simply providing calorie information will actually change dining behavior in meaningful ways. Without this behavioral change happening "in sufficient numbers to affect average caloric intake," the entire argument collapses. If diners largely ignore the calorie counts or if only a tiny fraction change their choices, then average consumption won't decrease and obesity rates won't improve.
Looking at the wrong answers: B addresses a potential problem but isn't necessary for the basic argument to work - even if some restaurants increase portions, the argument could still succeed if enough diners choose lower-calorie options overall. C is irrelevant because the argument only claims that mandating calorie counts will help when people do eat out - it doesn't require that restaurant dining be more frequent than home cooking. D, while potentially true, isn't required for this specific argument since the official's claim is limited to the relationship between calorie labeling and consumption, not about obesity's primary causes.
Strategy tip: In assumption questions, ask yourself "What if this weren't true?" If negating a statement destroys the argument, you've found your assumption. Here, if diners don't actually change their behavior based on calorie information, the official's entire plan fails.
- Which of the following is an assumption required by the editor's argument?
Answer: Most current readers of the print edition have reliable Internet access and will continue reading the magazine online.
When you encounter assumption questions on GMAT Verbal, you're looking for unstated premises that must be true for the argument to work. The editor's logic flows from "readers under 30 prefer digital" to "moving online will widen readership" – but there's a crucial gap here.
The editor assumes that gaining younger readers will result in a net increase in total readership. For this to happen, the magazine can't lose more current readers than it gains from the under-30 demographic. This makes choice A essential: if current print readers don't have reliable internet access or won't transition online, the magazine could actually lose readership despite attracting younger readers.
Choice B addresses financial viability, but the argument is specifically about widening readership, not profitability. The editor's conclusion could be correct even if the venture isn't financially sustainable.
Choice C suggests under-30 readers are the largest untapped segment, but the argument only requires that this group be large enough to increase total readership – they don't need to be the biggest available market.
Choice D concerns market saturation, but even in a crowded online space, the magazine could still attract some younger readers. The argument doesn't require dominating this market, just gaining enough readers to achieve growth.
Remember: assumption questions ask what must be true, not what would strengthen the argument. Look for gaps between evidence and conclusion, then find the choice that bridges that gap necessarily rather than helpfully.
- The analyst's reasoning relies on which of the following assumptions?
Answer: Customers who already purchase the chocolate bars will not switch to less expensive alternatives after the price increase.
When you encounter assumption questions on the GMAT, you're looking for an unstated premise that must be true for the argument to work. If the assumption is false, the argument falls apart.
The analyst argues that raising prices will increase sales volume because customers judge quality by price. For this logic to hold, the analyst must assume that current customers won't abandon the product due to the higher price. If existing customers switch to cheaper alternatives after the price increase, then sales volume would decrease, directly contradicting the predicted outcome. Choice C captures this essential assumption – without it, the argument's conclusion becomes impossible.
Let's examine why the other choices aren't necessary assumptions. Choice A addresses whether customers perceive the increase as excessive, but the argument could still work even if some customers find it expensive, as long as the quality perception boost outweighs this concern. Choice B about competitor pricing isn't required – the argument could succeed regardless of what competitors do, since it's based on customers' quality perceptions of this specific product. Choice D concerning shelf placement is irrelevant to the core argument about price-quality perception; the reasoning doesn't depend on product positioning.
Strategy tip: For assumption questions, use the "negation test" – if negating an answer choice destroys the argument's conclusion, you've found the correct assumption. Negating C (customers will switch to cheaper alternatives) would make increased sales volume impossible, confirming it's the right answer.
- Which of the following is an assumption required for the official's prediction to hold?
Answer: The overpass will be built at a location that corresponds to a major segment of the deer population's migration route.
Critical reasoning questions about predictions require you to identify what must be true for the conclusion to logically follow from the premises. The wildlife official concludes that collisions will decrease by 60% because deer will prefer using the overpass instead of crossing the roadway.
The correct answer is B because for deer to use the overpass instead of crossing the highway, the overpass must actually intercept the deer's natural crossing patterns. If the overpass is built in a location where deer don't naturally cross—away from their migration routes or travel corridors—then deer won't encounter it and will continue crossing the highway at their usual spots. The official's entire prediction hinges on deer choosing the overpass over the roadway, which is impossible if the overpass isn't positioned where deer actually need to cross.
Let's examine why the other choices aren't necessary assumptions: A assumes driver behavior affects the outcome, but the prediction is specifically about deer using the overpass rather than crossing the road—driver speed doesn't impact this choice. C suggests additional deer might come to the area, but even if they did, this wouldn't undermine the prediction that existing deer-vehicle collisions would decrease. D concerns other wildlife species, but the official's prediction focuses solely on deer behavior and collision reduction.
When tackling assumption questions, ask yourself: "What gap exists between the evidence and conclusion?" Here, the gap is whether the overpass will actually be accessible to deer at locations where they naturally cross. Always look for assumptions that directly connect the premises to the conclusion.
- The researcher's claim relies on which of the following assumptions?
Answer: The students will not compensate for the reduced sodium at school by consuming more high-sodium foods outside school.
Assumption questions test your ability to identify unstated premises that an argument requires to be valid. When an author makes a claim, they often rely on hidden assumptions—if these assumptions are false, the entire argument falls apart.
The researcher's argument follows this logic: replacing regular salt with potassium-based substitutes in school cafeterias → lower average blood pressure in students. For this causal relationship to work, the researcher must assume that students won't undermine the intervention through their behavior outside school. If students compensate by eating extra high-sodium foods at home or elsewhere, the salt reduction at school becomes meaningless, and blood pressure won't decrease as predicted. Choice A correctly identifies this critical assumption.
Choice B addresses taste and food acceptance, but even if students dislike the substitute, this doesn't break the core argument—it just affects implementation. Choice C focuses on the cause of high blood pressure, but the researcher's claim works regardless of whether sodium is the primary cause; even a secondary factor could still lower average blood pressure when reduced. Choice D concerns cost considerations, which are irrelevant to whether the intervention will actually achieve the claimed health outcome.
The key insight is that assumption questions often hinge on potential ways the proposed solution could be undermined or rendered ineffective. Look for answer choices that identify gaps where outside factors could sabotage the argument's conclusion. If you can imagine saying "But what if..." about an assumption, and that scenario would destroy the argument, you've likely found the right answer.
