Record number of new companies

[champmag]

With a record number of new companies starting up in Derderia and with previously established companies
adding many jobs, a record number of new jobs were created last year in the Derderian economy. This year,
previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last
year. Therefore, unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument relies?

A. Each year, new companies starting up create more new jobs overall than do previously established companies.
B. Companies established last year will not add a greater number of jobs overall this year than they did last year.
C. This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.
D. This year, the overall number of jobs created by previously established companies will be less than the overall number of jobs lost at those companies.
E. The number of jobs created in the Derderian economy last year was substantially larger than the number of jobs lost last year.

Plz explain each answer choice.

[irock]

Answer should be C.

The conclusion is "Therefore, unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for the new jobs created. "

The author has concluded that the establishment of new companies is not enough and the number of the new startups must be a record number. from this we can tell that there is some kind of a limit on the number of new jobs an average startup will provide.

C state that assumption "This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year."

[itsmebharat]

A. Each year, new companies starting up create more new jobs overall than do previously established companies.
B. Companies established last year will not add a greater number of jobs overall this year than they did last year.
C. This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.
D. This year, the overall number of jobs created by previously established companies will be less than the overall number of jobs lost at those companies.
E. The number of jobs created in the Derderian economy last year was substantially larger than the number of jobs lost last year.

I am confused between B and C, but answer choice most appropriate is C, B talks about number of jobs will not be greater than last year. But there is no data to support.
and in C the conclusion says "unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for new jobs created. "

[sourabh33]

Although the OA is C, I have an issue between C & B. My approach is laid below, please let me know where am i getting this wrong.


Conclusion: Derdia will not break its record unless record number of new companies startup this year


In the following example we can prove that the conclusion is valid even if assumption C is negated.

Conclusion: Derdia broke its record 375>300, and a record no of companies started 15>10
Premise: Previously Established Companies did not more jobs than last year -> 150<200



Last Year

Previously Established Companies -> 20
Jobs Added by previously added companies -> 200
Jobs added per previously established company -> 200/20 = 10

Number of new companies established -> 10
jobs added by the new companies -> 100
jobs added per new company -> 100/10 =10

Total Jobs created last year -> 300


This Year

Previously Established Companies -> 30 (20+10)
Jobs Added by previously added companies -> 150 (100+50)
Jobs added per previously established company -> 150/30 = 5

Number of new companies established -> 15
jobs added by the new companies -> 225
jobs added per new company -> 225/15 = 15

Total Jobs created this year -> 375

[lunarpower]

sourabh -- nope

the conclusion says:

unless a record number of companies start up this year, Derderia will not break its record for the new jobs created. "

make sure you know what "unless" means -- it means that whatever follows "unless" is an allowable exception to what is being stated.
in other words, you need to ignore the cases described by "unless" in your reasoning -- the conclusion is based solely on the remaining possibilities.

this means that you need to do basically the opposite of what you've done above: you need to ignore the cases in which a record number of companies start up, and consider the argument only for cases in which a record number of companies do NOT start up.

so:

Conclusion: Derdia broke its record 375>300, and a record no of companies started 15>10

whoops -- this is one of the cases that you need to ignore, as indicated by "unless".

[sourabh33]

Thank you so much!

But please consider this case, even if we consider otherwise i.e a record no of companies did not start and Derdia did not break its record, we can still prove this by not assuming C

Example

Last Year

Previously Established Companies -> 20
Jobs Added by previously added companies -> 200
Jobs added per previously established company -> 200/20 = 10

Number of new companies established -> 10
jobs added by the new companies -> 100
jobs added per new company -> 100/10 =10

Total Jobs created last year -> 300


This Year

Previously Established Companies -> 30 (20+10)
Jobs Added by previously added companies -> 150 (100+50)
Jobs added per previously established company -> 150/30 = 5

Number of new companies established -> 9
jobs added by the new companies -> 117
jobs added per new company -> 117/9 = 13

Total Jobs created this year -> 267

here following are satisfied

1. Did record no of companies start up - NO (9 this year versus 10 last year)
2. Did Derderia break its record - No (267 this year versus 300 last year)


Though the new companies starting provided more no of jobs(13) than that(10) provided by new companies last year.

[lunarpower]

i see what you're trying to do here, but the key lies in the following word:

This year, the new companies starting up will not provide substantially more jobs per company than did new companies last year.

what you have to do here is understand, from context, that this use of "substantially" is intended to mean "substantial enough to overcome the decrement in the other statistics". so, in your case, the jump from 10 to 13 isn't "substantial" enough to make up for the drops that you've created in the other statistics.
yes, i understand that this is more vague than you would like, but that's part of the "management-type thinking" that's tested on this exam -- sometimes you have to use a certain amount of intuition to understand what statements are intended to mean if there is any vagueness in their wording.

--

the real question is -- which answer choice did you think was better than (c)? none of the other ones are substantively related to the material of the argument, so i'm curious.

[sourabh33]

Ron Sir, sorry for pestering you on this

But will you consider 60 to be substantially more than 10. And if yes, then please consider the following.


Last Year

Previously Established Companies -> 20
Jobs Added by previously added companies -> 200
Jobs added per previously established company -> 200/20 = 10

Number of new companies established -> 10
jobs added by the new companies -> 100
jobs added per new company -> 100/10 =10

Total Jobs created last year -> 300


This Year

Previously Established Companies -> 30 (20+10)
Jobs Added by previously added companies -> 150 (100+50)
Jobs added per previously established company -> 150/30 = 5

Number of new companies established -> 2
jobs added by the new companies -> 120
jobs added per new company -> 120/2 = 60

Total Jobs created this year -> 270

here following are satisfied

1. Did record no of companies start up - NO (2 this year versus 10 last year)
2. Did Derderia break its record - No (270 this year versus 300 last year)


Though the new companies starting provided more no of jobs(13) than that(10) provided by new companies last year.


And, I got your point on unless. !!

Unless Nadal plays well, he will not win the Roland Garros.
If Nadal plays well, he may or may not win the Roland Garros.

Using above we can say that the following will always be true

Nadal did not play well; he did not win the Roland Garros

[lunarpower]

look, i see what you're doing here.
but...
what's happening here is that you've created an example involving an extreme and improbable statistical anomaly (you've dropped the number of new companies all the way down to 2). therefore, because you've postulated an extreme statistical anomaly, the definitions of vague terms like "substantial" will also become ... anomalies.

do you work in programming/IT?
if so, read this comment:
https://www.beatthegmat.com/in-an-attemp ... tml#367933
the same point is true here: this test is meant to test the sort of reasoning used in management, **NOT** the strictly logical/mathematical thinking used in programming. at all times, you must read arguments with an eye to common-sense interpretations, and with an eye to rejecting extreme and improbable interpretations of statements.

you CANNOT reason in a way that puts improbable/extreme interpretations on the same level as probable/common-sense ones -- because that kind of reasoning would make someone the worst business manager who ever lived (although it would also make someone really good at getting rid of bugs in computer programs).
hence, the sort of way in which you have to read these arguments.

--

also, the question remains -- which answer choice did you think was better than this one?

if the other 4 choices are easy eliminations, and you have to go this far out of your way to "eliminate" this one ... then that's a pretty good indicator that this one is correct.

Ron Sir, sorry for pestering you on this

But will you consider 60 to be substantially more than 10. And if yes, then please consider the following.


Last Year

Previously Established Companies -> 20
Jobs Added by previously added companies -> 200
Jobs added per previously established company -> 200/20 = 10

Number of new companies established -> 10
jobs added by the new companies -> 100
jobs added per new company -> 100/10 =10

Total Jobs created last year -> 300


This Year

Previously Established Companies -> 30 (20+10)
Jobs Added by previously added companies -> 150 (100+50)
Jobs added per previously established company -> 150/30 = 5

Number of new companies established -> 2
jobs added by the new companies -> 120
jobs added per new company -> 120/2 = 60

Total Jobs created this year -> 270

here following are satisfied

1. Did record no of companies start up - NO (2 this year versus 10 last year)
2. Did Derderia break its record - No (270 this year versus 300 last year)


Though the new companies starting provided more no of jobs(13) than that(10) provided by new companies last year.


And, I got your point on unless. !!

Unless Nadal plays well, he will not win the Roland Garros.
If Nadal plays well, he may or may not win the Roland Garros.

Using above we can say that the following will always be true

Nadal did not play well; he did not win the Roland Garros

[sourabh33]

Thank you so much for your feedback !! In fact,I am a green building consultant, and do not work in IT/Programming.

While solving this question, I thought both B & C could be appropriate for this answer and tried working on few examples quickly, and found that B could be true. But, while analyzing my mistakes, I found that the conclusion could be true even if B is negated.

B because, the situation in which companies established last year add a greater number of jobs overall this year than last year, the number of overall jobs in Derdia could be more than that created last year. But, for this to be true the previously existing no of companies have to be significantly more to nullify the effect of the condition given in the stimulus i.e previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last
year. In all the three examples that I provided, option B is assumed.

I guess, my error was not to think this in a spectrum of real world cases, and to think in terms of what most books on critical reasoning say - keep your real world knowledge aside; specially for questions that involve formal logic.

[lunarpower]

While solving this question, I thought both B & C could be appropriate for this answer and tried working on few examples quickly, and found that B could be true. But, while analyzing my mistakes, I found that the conclusion could be true even if B is negated.

B because, the situation in which companies established last year add a greater number of jobs overall this year than last year, the number of overall jobs in Derdia could be more than that created last year. But, for this to be true the previously existing no of companies have to be significantly more to nullify the effect of the condition given in the stimulus i.e previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last
year. In all the three examples that I provided, option B is assumed.

this is good, but the more direct reason is that (b) is dealing with a sub-component of something that is already subsumed under the premises of the passage.
note, from the passage:
previously established companies will not be adding as many new jobs overall as such companies added last year.

(b) deals with companies started last year -- this is a small part of the overall effect described above. since we've already got the total effect, it doesn't matter how this breaks down into last year vs. earlier years.

I guess, my error :-( was not to think this in a spectrum of real world cases, and to think in terms of what most books on critical reasoning say - keep your real world knowledge aside; specially for questions that involve formal logic.

hey, yeah, this is the crux of the issues that you're having:
you DO need to set aside real-world KNOWLEDGE.
you CAN'T set aside real-world COMMON SENSE / INTUITION!!

make sure you understand the difference here -- if you do, then you should be on your way to making better judgments on these questions.

(also, the whole "set real-world knowledge aside" thing is, in my experience, overrated -- on 99.9% of these problems your real-world knowledge will just be irrelevant anyway. the only thing you have to watch out for is being trapped by choices that you know are true in the real world, but just don't have anything to do with what you're reading.)

[[email protected]]

tricky one though initially seemed easy. Actual answer is B though initially c seems to be the answer choice.

[[email protected]]

Also the author has given the bifurcation between previously established companies and companies established last year.