- Which one of the following assumptions permits the conclusion above to be properly drawn?
Answer: Employees will be made aware that audits will occur at random times.
Random audits can deter fraud only if employees know they might be audited unexpectedly. The other options may strengthen or concern feasibility but are not required for deterrence.
- Due to increased demand for electric vehicles, the cost of lithium, a key component in batteries, has risen sharply. As a result, manufacturers are likely to increase the prices of electric vehicles. The argument above depends on which one of the following assumptions?
Answer: Manufacturers cannot absorb the increased cost of lithium without raising vehicle prices.
The argument concludes that manufacturers are likely to increase electric vehicle prices due to rising lithium costs. The key logical gap is assuming that manufacturers will pass increased costs onto consumers rather than absorbing them. For this causal chain to work, we must assume that manufacturers cannot absorb the increased lithium costs without raising vehicle prices. Choice A directly addresses this assumption about cost pass-through behavior. Choice D, while tempting, merely establishes that lithium is relevant to electric vehicle production but doesn't address whether cost increases will translate to price increases. The negation test reveals the necessity: if manufacturers COULD absorb the increased costs without raising prices, the argument's conclusion would collapse entirely. This assumption is fundamental to any cost-push pricing argument in economics.
- Which one of the following assumptions permits the conclusion above to be properly drawn?
Answer: Establishing wildflower strips on most farms will not lower crop yields under typical growing conditions.
The conclusion asserts reduced pesticide use without yield loss, so it assumes wildflower strips do not themselves reduce yields. If strips lowered yields, the conclusion would be false; the other options are not required for the inference.
- The argument above depends on which one of the following assumptions?
Answer: C. Every report the committee reviews is either accepted or rejected, and any report not rejected is accepted.
The argument moves from 'not rejected' to 'accepted,' which requires that any report not rejected must be accepted. If reports can be neither accepted nor rejected, the conclusion fails; the other choices would at most strengthen but are not required.
- A town council concludes that replacing streetlights with LED fixtures improved public safety. After the replacement, reported nighttime vehicle accidents at intersections decreased. The council notes that the new LEDs produce more uniform illumination, and uniform illumination makes it easier for drivers to see pedestrians and lane markings. Since better visibility reduces collisions, the LED replacement caused the accident decline. Therefore, towns that replace streetlights with LEDs will make their streets safer at night.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Answer: More uniform illumination at intersections makes it easier for drivers to see potential hazards.
This argument concludes that LED streetlight replacement improved public safety and will make other towns safer, based on decreased nighttime intersection accidents. The premises establish that accidents declined after LED installation and that LEDs provide more uniform illumination. The logical gap involves the mechanism connecting illumination and safety: for LED replacement to cause fewer accidents, the more uniform illumination must actually help drivers see potential hazards better. If lighting uniformity doesn't meaningfully improve hazard visibility—perhaps because other factors like glare or color temperature matter more—then the LEDs wouldn't enhance safety through this mechanism. Choice (C) restates the accident data, while choice (E) eliminates confounding factors but doesn't establish the causal mechanism. The negation test confirms (A): if uniform illumination doesn't improve drivers' ability to see hazards, the LED replacement wouldn't reduce accidents through better visibility.
- The argument above depends on which one of the following assumptions?
Answer: Most citizens cannot find sufficient time between Monday and Thursday to read the full text.
The conclusion presumes that a midweek window is too short for most citizens to complete the required reading. If most could find time to read it, the argument would not hold.
- Which one of the following assumptions permits the conclusion above to be properly drawn?
Answer: The earlier increase in average grades was due at least in part to the extended library hours.
The argument assumes the prior grade increase was caused, at least partly, by extended hours; otherwise extending them further would not justify expecting a larger increase. Negating B severs the causal link and collapses the conclusion, while the other choices are not required for the prediction.
- Which one of the following assumptions permits the conclusion above to be properly drawn?
Answer: Hiker traffic, not rainfall alone, is a significant contributor to the erosion that occurs during the rainy months.
The conclusion that closure will prevent erosion assumes that human use materially contributes to erosion during rainy months. If rainfall alone causes the erosion, closing the trail would not prevent it. The other choices concern costs, preferences, weather trends, or external effects that are not required for the claim.
- The argument above depends on which one of the following assumptions?
Answer: The diners surveyed were broadly representative of city residents who might try the cafe.
The conclusion generalizes from surveyed diners to city residents, requiring that the sample represent likely city customers; if not, the inference collapses. Other choices might strengthen but are not required for the owner's claim.
- A software firm argues that switching to a four-day workweek increased productivity. After the switch, the average number of resolved support tickets per employee rose. Managers also reported that employees took fewer midweek absences, which often disrupt team coordination. Since fewer absences make it easier to coordinate work, the four-day schedule is what raised productivity. Thus, adopting a four-day workweek will increase productivity for most office-based companies.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Answer: The rise in resolved support tickets is a valid measure of employee productivity for that firm.
This argument concludes that four-day workweeks will increase productivity for most office companies based on one firm's results. The premises show resolved support tickets per employee increased and fewer midweek absences occurred after the schedule change. The logical gap lies in assuming that resolved support tickets validly measure productivity for this type of firm. If ticket resolution doesn't accurately reflect productive output—perhaps employees rushed through tickets without properly solving problems, or easier tickets were prioritized—then the evidence doesn't support the productivity claim. Choice (C) restates the ticket data, while choice (E) eliminates confounding variables but doesn't address measurement validity. The negation test confirms (A): if ticket resolution isn't a valid productivity measure for this firm, the evidence doesn't support the conclusion about increased productivity.
- Which one of the following assumptions permits the conclusion above to be properly drawn?
Answer: The researchers implemented the rigorous methodology correctly and without significant error.
Rigorous methods yield reliable conclusions only if they are implemented correctly; otherwise the reliability claim fails. The other options may strengthen or concern policy/procedure but are not required for the argument.
- Which one of the following assumptions permits the conclusion above to be properly drawn?
Answer: Leaf thickness in this species varies in response to humidity rather than being fixed genetically in high-altitude populations.
The conclusion requires that leaf thickness is environmentally responsive to humidity, not genetically fixed. If thickness is not affected by humidity, lowering it would not cause thicker leaves.
- The argument requires assuming which one of the following?
Answer: Manuscripts submitted to the Quarterly last year were not, on the whole, of lower quality than those submitted five years ago.
The conclusion is that the journal's standards for acceptance have risen; the evidence is that the acceptance rate fell from eighteen percent to nine percent while the number of manuscripts published stayed roughly the same. The gap is that the same rule applied to a much larger and weaker inflow of submissions would also halve the rate. (C) blocks that alternative explanation, and negating it destroys the inference. Negating the distractors leaves the argument standing: less time spent per manuscript (A) is compatible with stricter standards; the journal's prestige relative to other journals (B) is beside the point; a submission pool whose average quality merely held steady rather than rose (D) still yields the editors' conclusion; and readers' judgments of importance (E) concern the value of published work, not the acceptance threshold.
- The argument above depends on which one of the following assumptions?
Answer: The design team did not receive temporary resources or incentives that would not be provided company-wide.
The conclusion generalizes from one team's success to the entire company, so it must assume the pilot team was not aided by something others will lack. If the design team received special resources or incentives that will not be provided company-wide, its unchanged output would not predict company-wide results, and the argument collapses — that is why this is a necessary assumption. Whether competitors adopt a similar schedule is irrelevant; the argument concerns this firm's total output, not its competitive standing. Improved satisfaction across departments is not required — output could stay level even if satisfaction did not rise, so this assumes something the argument never needs. Universal preference for the four-day schedule is also unnecessary; employees can dislike a schedule and still maintain output, so the conclusion does not depend on it. Finally, promising not to expand the product line addresses a different variable — new work could reduce output, but the argument makes no claim about workload staying fixed, so this is not an assumption it relies on.
- A museum director argues that extending weekend hours will increase attendance. Last year, the museum held two special late-night openings on Saturdays, and attendance on those days was much higher than on typical Saturdays. Surveys taken during the late-night events reported that many visitors came specifically because they could not visit during regular hours. Since more convenient hours attract visitors who otherwise would not come, extending weekend hours will increase overall museum attendance.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Answer: The late-night openings were similar to typical weekends in ways relevant to attendance.
The argument concludes that extending weekend hours will increase overall museum attendance based on higher attendance during two special late-night Saturday openings. The premises show these special events had higher attendance and attracted visitors who couldn't come during regular hours. The logical gap concerns whether these special events accurately predict the results of regular extended hours. Special events often generate excitement and publicity that regular extended hours wouldn't maintain, potentially inflating attendance figures. Choice (C) restates the attendance data, while choice (E) eliminates other factors but doesn't address the comparison's validity. The negation test confirms (A)'s necessity: if the special late-night openings differed from typical weekends in ways that affected attendance (like novelty or promotion), the results wouldn't reliably predict regular extended hours' success.
- The argument above depends on which one of the following assumptions?
Answer: The ban will not lead to increases in car traffic in adjacent neighborhoods that offset reductions downtown.
The conclusion is that banning downtown cars will improve the city's OVERALL air quality. That leap requires that the eliminated traffic not simply relocate: if cars diverted into nearby neighborhoods produce emissions that cancel the downtown drop, citywide air quality would not improve. So the argument depends on the diverted traffic not offsetting the reductions — the keyed answer. Expanding public transit would help commuters, but the argument does not need it to hold; air could improve even if displaced drivers stayed home. Whether businesses lose revenue and pressure a repeal concerns the ban's political survival, not whether the ban (while in effect) improves air quality. The delivery exemption is already stated in the passage as a given, so restating it adds no assumption the conclusion relies on. Sensor accuracy supports the agency's premise about the source of pollution, but the argument treats that premise as accepted; the conclusion's gap is about citywide effect, not measurement. Only the displacement point must be true for the reasoning to work.
- A professor argues that students who attend optional review sessions earn higher exam scores than those who do not. Last semester, after the professor began offering a new set of review sessions, the class average rose noticeably. Since review sessions give students practice with the kinds of problems that appear on exams, the new review sessions must have been responsible for the higher class average. Therefore, requiring all students to attend the sessions will raise exam scores in future semesters.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Answer: No other major change in the course occurred that would account for the higher class average.
This argument concludes that requiring review session attendance will raise future exam scores, based on higher class averages after introducing new review sessions. The professor establishes correlation between the timing of new sessions and improved performance, then claims causation. The logical gap exists between the temporal coincidence and the causal attribution. For the conclusion to hold, we must assume no other changes could account for the higher class average. Choice A states this necessary assumption—if curriculum changes, easier exams, or different teaching methods explained the improvement, then review sessions might not be responsible. Choice C merely restates the premise about when sessions began, which doesn't need assumption since it's already established. The negation test reveals A's necessity: if another major change did occur that could account for higher averages, the argument that mandatory sessions will help future students becomes much weaker.
- The argument above depends on which one of the following assumptions?
Answer: Any significant fraud would have been detectable by at least one of the auditors' methodologies.
The inference assumes the methods used were capable of revealing any significant fraud if it existed. If significant fraud could evade all the auditors' approaches, their clean reports would not justify the conclusion. The other options are not necessary for that inference.
- The argument above depends on which one of the following assumptions?
Answer: The coins were not introduced into that layer by later disturbance or burrowing long after they were minted.
The argument uses fifth-century coins in the lowest layer to date the settlement. That only works if the coins actually got there while people lived at the site. If later disturbance or burrowing dropped them into that layer long after minting, the coins would date nothing about the original occupation — so the argument depends on ruling this out. This is the necessary assumption.
Whether inhabitants treated the coins as currency versus ornaments does not matter: either way the coins were present during occupation, which is all the dating needs. Where the coins were minted is irrelevant, since a coin can travel far from its mint and still land in an occupied layer. Whether later-century coins exist elsewhere on the site says nothing about when this settlement began; earlier occupation is compatible with later coins too. And the metal's resistance to corrosion affects only whether coins survive to be found, not when they entered the layer — the argument works even for a well-preserved intrusive coin. Only the assumption about undisturbed deposition must hold for the conclusion to follow.
- A financial advisor argues that investing in a certain index fund is low risk. Over the past ten years, that fund's value has fluctuated less than the value of most individual stocks. Investments that fluctuate less are less likely to produce large losses over short periods. So the fund is less likely than individual stocks to produce large short-term losses. Therefore, investing in that index fund is a low-risk investment.
Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
Answer: An investment's likelihood of producing large short‑term losses is a key component of its risk.
The argument concludes that an index fund is low-risk because it fluctuates less than individual stocks and is less likely to produce large short-term losses. The premises establish the fund's lower volatility and that less volatile investments are less likely to cause large short-term losses. The logical gap involves what constitutes 'risk': for lower volatility to make something low-risk, the likelihood of large short-term losses must be a key component of investment risk. If risk primarily involves other factors like long-term performance, inflation protection, or liquidity concerns, then reduced short-term loss probability wouldn't necessarily make the investment low-risk overall. Choice (C) restates the volatility comparison, while choice (B) makes an overly strong claim about risk elimination. The negation test confirms (A): if large short-term loss potential isn't a key component of risk, then reducing this likelihood wouldn't make the investment low-risk.
