BREAKING: Target Test Prep releases Brand New 2026 On Demand GMAT prep course

Redeem

assumption

Expert replies
by arorag » Tue Aug 18, 2009 6:26 pm
Thirty years ago, the percentage of the British people who vacationed in foreign countries was very small compared with the large percentage of the British population who travel abroad for vacations now. Foreign travel is and always has been expensive from Britain. Therefore, British people must have on an average more money to spend on vacations now than they did 30 years ago. The argument requires assumption of which one of the following?

(1) If foreign travel had been less expensive 30 years ago, British people would still not have had enough money to take vacations abroad.

(2) If travel to Britain were less expensive, more people of other countries would travel to Britain for their vacations.

(3) If the percentage of British people vacationing abroad was lower 30 years ago, then the British people of 30 years ago must have spent more money on domestic vacations.

(4) If 30 years back more British people had enough money to vacation abroad, more would have done so.
Join the discussion
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Re: assumption

by sk8ternite » Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:26 pm
arorag wrote:Thirty years ago, the percentage of the British people who vacationed in foreign countries was very small compared with the large percentage of the British population who travel abroad for vacations now. Foreign travel is and always has been expensive from Britain. Therefore, British people must have on an average more money to spend on vacations now than they did 30 years ago. The argument requires assumption of which one of the following?

(1) If foreign travel had been less expensive 30 years ago, British people would still not have had enough money to take vacations abroad.

(2) If travel to Britain were less expensive, more people of other countries would travel to Britain for their vacations.

(3) If the percentage of British people vacationing abroad was lower 30 years ago, then the British people of 30 years ago must have spent more money on domestic vacations.

(4) If 30 years back more British people had enough money to vacation abroad, more would have done so.
I think (4)
Join the discussion

by delhiboy1979 » Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:24 pm
NOt sure if this a trick one, but I go for 4, looks really obvious though.
Join the discussion

by gmatmachoman » Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:45 am
IMO d
Reason:
now people have more money ,so they are going abroad for vacation.If they would have had the same more money ,they would have enjoyed their vacations abroad 30 yrs ago..
Join the discussion

by 2010gmat » Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:59 pm
i would like to re-open this thread...

what is the problem with 1.?? am unable to figure it out...

was stuck between 1. and 4. .. was convinced that ans is 4. but then :roll:

is it wrong because it simply talks about the money for vacation and not people actually going for the vacation??
Join the discussion

by nervesofsteel » Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:05 am
It will be 4

1 is not at all supported by information

(1) If foreign travel had been less expensive 30 years ago, British people would still not have had enough money to take vacations abroad.
Join the discussion

by 2010gmat » Wed Oct 28, 2009 12:07 am
its not an inference question so we have to take the choices as it is....

the answer wont be affected by whether 1 is supported by stimuli or not ... question is can we plug in 1. and strengthen the argument
Join the discussion

by gmatv09 » Wed Oct 28, 2009 8:26 am
definitely E
Join the discussion

by james33 » Sun May 15, 2016 9:49 pm
Well I feel E is the answer. I guess I'm right. If some expert could
Join the discussion