Critical Reasoning

The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a drop in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the
number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
(B) Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not
have.
(C) The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television
has not decreased significantly during the past three years.
(D) The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.
(E) The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly
wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years.

Can some one please explain the negation of correct answer choice C here?
Negating it -
The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television
has decreased significantly during the past three years. Here, the number of hours has decreased, doesn't it imply that the number of television sets assembled has decreased, and thus supports the conclusion that increased imports from Vernland.

Am I doing something wrong here?

I don't use negation technique as i am not comfortable with it. I will work with question stem to get to the answer.
"The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, "

States.. Vernland has cheaper labour force.The taxes applied to Vernland have been droped. So Vernland televisions have become cheaper for borodia than it was before..

"the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a drop in the number of television assemblers in Borodia."...

States.. Number of television sold in borodia is constant before and after tax reduction. At the same time there is drop in the number of television assemblers in assemblers.

"Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased."
So.. as labour force have decreased in borodia and vernland tv's are available at cheaper price than it was before.. it concludes .. number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased..

OK... Now Assumption should try to mitigate any thing that is unstated,which weaken the conclusion.. Possibly what assumptions you can make.. Anything which states inspite of low labour force borodia can produce same amout of TVs such as
1) Borodia has not started outsourcing tv production..
2) Borodia has not automated its manual work.
3) Borodia has not increased effitiency in its work force

So going by this
A, B, D, E gives extra information which not related to strengthening of conclusion..
C.. says something which strengthens the conclusion that efficiency of labour is constant or less hence it must be importing TVs

yourshail123 wrote: Can some one please explain the negation of correct answer choice C here?
Negating it -
The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television
has decreased significantly during the past three years. Here, the number of hours has decreased, doesn't it imply that the number of television sets assembled has decreased, and thus supports the conclusion that increased imports from Vernland.

Am I doing something wrong here?

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

C says that Television assembler in Borodia continue to use the same or more time to assemble.

Negation of C is "The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has decreased significantly during the past three years". This means that Borodian Television assemblers are able to assemble more TVs per hour than they were producing 3 years back.

Average time to assemble = (Total no of TV assembled)/(Total time taken to assemble)

3years back they were assembling 10/hr. average time has decreased. Hence now they are producing 20/hr.

If the above statement is true then the conclusion that number of television Borodia imports from Vernland has increased falls apart. This is because if the average time taken by Borodian assemblers has decreased, they are assembling more TVs than they were assembling 3 years back and there is no need to import from Vernland.

yourshail123 wrote:The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a drop in the number of television assemblers in Borodia. Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
(A) The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the
number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.
(B) Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not
have.
(C) The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television
has not decreased significantly during the past three years.
(D) The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.
(E) The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly
wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years.

Can some one please explain the negation of correct answer choice C here?
Negating it -
The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television
has decreased significantly during the past three years. Here, the number of hours has decreased, doesn't it imply that the number of television sets assembled has decreased, and thus supports the conclusion that increased imports from Vernland.

Am I doing something wrong here?

This CR exhibits a LANGUAGE SHIFT.
The premise is about the number of ASSEMBLERS.
The conclusion is about the number of TELEVISIONS THAT WILL BE IMPORTED.
The ASSUMPTION is that a decrease in the number of ASSEMBLERS in Borodia will lead to a decrease in the number of TELEVISIONS PRODUCED in Borodia.

Answer choice C, negated: The average number of hours it takes a Borodian assembler to assemble a television has decreased significantly during the past three years.
If it takes MUCH LESS TIME TO ASSEMBLE A TELEVISION in Borodia, then the number of televisions produced there will not decrease, invalidating the conclusion that a greater number of televisions will be imported.
Since the negation of C invalidates the conclusion, C is the necessary assumption: WHAT MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to be valid.

The correct answer is C.

Hi GMATGuruNY,
Thanks for your explanation.

Just would like to know whether the followings can be considered as POSSIBLE ASSUMPTIONS or not -

1. The number of TV ASSEMBLERS in Borodia has been working for the same amount of time MORE or LESS. The amount of time they work has not increased significantly during the past three years.

2. updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased -- in this regard,I think,it can be assumed that Vernland will ACTUALLY be able to provide this EXTRA number of TVs to Borodia.

3. There aren't any OTHER SIGNIFICANT factors involved that could affect the INCREASE in IMPORTS from Vernland.

Please let me know your thoughts on the above.

Also, could you please shed some light on this part of the stimulus -- Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. -- how it's making sense ?

@ GMATGuruNY - Any update on my above queries Sir ?

Look forward to your feedback. Much thanks in advance!

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi GMATGuruNY,
Thanks for your explanation.

Just would like to know whether the followings can be considered as POSSIBLE ASSUMPTIONS or not -

1. The number of TV ASSEMBLERS in Borodia has been working for the same amount of time MORE or LESS. The amount of time they work has not decreased significantly during the past three years.

2. updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased -- in this regard,I think,it can be assumed that Vernland will ACTUALLY be able to provide this EXTRA number of TVs to Borodia.

3. There aren't any OTHER SIGNIFICANT factors involved as far as INCREASE in IMPORTS from Vernland is concerned.

Please let me know your thoughts on the above.

When pre-thinking the assumption, do not get too specific.
Instead, keep it general.
Here, the argument concludes that TV imports from Vernland must have increased.
What does the argument assume?
That nothing rendered these imports impossible or unnecessary.

Also, could you please shed some light on this part of the stimulus -- Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. -- how it's making sense ?

Before three years ago, a tax was imposed on TVs imported from Vernland.
Three years ago, the tax was eliminated.
Even with the elimination of the tax, the number of TVs sold in Borodia has not increased.

GMATGuruNY wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi GMATGuruNY,
Thanks for your explanation.

Just would like to know whether the followings can be considered as POSSIBLE ASSUMPTIONS or not -

1. The number of TV ASSEMBLERS in Borodia has been working for the same amount of time MORE or LESS. The amount of time they work has not increased significantly during the past three years.

2. updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased -- in this regard,I think,it can be assumed that Vernland will ACTUALLY be able to provide this EXTRA number of TVs to Borodia.

3. There aren't any OTHER SIGNIFICANT factors involved that could affect the INCREASE in IMPORTS from Vernland.

Please let me know your thoughts on the above.

Also, could you please shed some light on this part of the stimulus -- Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. -- how it's making sense ?

When pre-thinking the assumption, do not get too specific.
Instead, keep it general.
Here, the argument concludes that TV imports from Vernland must have increased.
What does the argument assume?
That nothing rendered these imports impossible or unnecessary.

Hi GMATGuruNY - thanks for the inputs.Yes, but I was trying to figure out the possible ASSUMPTIONS to better understand the CR at hand in GENERAL.

Would it be possible for your to shed some lights with respect to my THREE possible ASSUMPTIONS mentioned above ?

P.S: As you share your feedback, kindly refer back either to my ORIGINAL post or to the top of this particular post (as I've made some changes in my questions).

GMATGuruNY wrote:

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi GMATGuruNY,
Thanks for your explanation.

Just would like to know whether the followings can be considered as POSSIBLE ASSUMPTIONS or not -

(1) The number of TV ASSEMBLERS in Borodia has been working for the same amount of time MORE or LESS. The amount of time they work has not increased significantly during the past three years.

(2) updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased -- in this regard,I think,it can be assumed that Vernland will ACTUALLY be able to provide this EXTRA number of TVs to Borodia.

(3) There aren't any OTHER SIGNIFICANT factors involved that could affect the INCREASE in IMPORTS from Vernland.

When pre-thinking the assumption, do not get too specific.
Instead, keep it general.
Here, the argument concludes that TV imports from Vernland must have increased.
What does the argument assume?
That nothing rendered these imports impossible or unnecessary.

Hi GMATGuruNY - Could you please share your thoughts that whether I'm correct on the THREE possible ASSUMPTIONS mentioned above ?

GMATGuruNY wrote:

Also, could you please shed some light on this part of the stimulus -- Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. -- how it's making sense ?

Before three years ago, a tax was imposed on TVs imported from Vernland.
Three years ago, the tax was eliminated.
Even with the elimination of the tax, the number of TVs sold in Borodia has not increased.

Actually I don't get how this -- Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. -- is a CAUSAL statement ? What is the implication of this statement on the ARGUMENT/CONCLUSION ?

RBBmba@2014 wrote:Hi GMATGuruNY - Could you please share your thoughts that whether I'm correct on the THREE possible ASSUMPTIONS mentioned above ?

With regard to this portion of your post, please refer to my thoughts here:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/suggested-po ... tml#764529

GMATGuruNY wrote:I don't get how this -- Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. -- is a CAUSAL statement ? What is the implication of this statement on the ARGUMENT/CONCLUSION ?

No causal relationship is implied.
The statement above affects the conclusion in the following ways:

Since the tariff has been eliminated, TVs can now be imported from Vernland more cheaply.

Since the number of TVs sold in Borodia has not changed, the hypothesized increase in imports cannot be linked to an increase in sales.