IMO B

Hi,
Can you please explain how you got B ??
As per my reasoning - Argument says :
MY administrator's business policies have helped reduce the unemployment..
My --> Politician..
So it is politician who helped to reduce the unemployment.
This is the reason I chose : E as E says politician's business friendly policies have had a direct affect.
OA : B

gughanbose wrote:IMO B

A - We don't care about people other than this particular politician - Irrelevant
B - Didn't think too much about it. Got thru POE.
C - No mention of the effects of the policies. C needs some background data regarding new jobs to use this as an assumption
D - Similar to C. No mention of fields and job types. D needs some background data regarding fields and job types to use this as an assumption
E - No mention of the effects of the policies or hiring or firms.

Options C D E - They talk about the final effects or ultimate motive of the policies. They seemed a lil far-fetched to me. Argument jus talks about the policies and condition of the people.

Assumption acts as a bridge. But to bridge two statements, you need some background info. I don't say that the info should have the exact keywords of assumption, but it should have something that leads to the keywords in assumption. You can't bring in a totally new concept or a very far-fetched one which involves making assumptions for assumptions !

Hope I am not confusing you !

Wat's the source, btw ?

Its 800score gmat test series.

How can you have option B?
It rather weakens the argument that friendly policies reduced the unemployment among the people willing to work, whereas option B says, 2% of the people are now not looking for work, that means they are not willing to work. This means policies have not reduced the unemployment.

I would go for E, as we are looking for an assumption that supports the conclusion.

I agree.. I have the same confusion about B. That it, weakens the conclusion

Politician: Since my administration entered office, the percentage of people looking for work but unable to find it
has dropped from 7% to 5% of the total number of people either working or looking for work. These statistics
show that my administration's business-friendly policies have helped reduce the level of unemployment among
those willing to work.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the politician's argument relies?
A. The previous administration's worker re-education program had no significant effect on the unemployment
rate.
B. Less than 2% of the population working or willing to work at the start of the politician's term have stopped
working or looking for work.
C. None of the new jobs created during the politician's term went to those who already had jobs.
D. Most of those looking for employment found jobs in the field they were trained in.
E. The politician's business-friendly policies have had a direct affect on the ability of firms to hire more workers.

Answer choice B, negated:
MORE than 2% of the population working or willing to work at the start of the politician's term have stopped working or looking for work.

Let's examine what the negation of B implies.
Let the number of people working or willing to work = 1000.

When the politician enters office, 7% can't find work:
Thus, the number unable to find work = .07(1000) = 70.

Today, more than 2% have stopped working/looking, 5% of those looking can't find work:
If 4% have stopped working or looking for work, then the number who have stopped working or looking for work = .04(1000) = 40.
Since 5% of the remaining 960 people are still looking for work but can't find it, the number still looking for work but unable to find it = .05(960) = 48.
Total unemployed = 40+48 = 88.

Thus, the number of people who are unemployed INCREASES from 70 to 88, invalidating the conclusion that the politician's policies have REDUCED unemployment.

Since the negation of B invalidates the conclusion, B is the assumption: WHAT MUST BE TRUE for the politician's conclusion to be valid.

The correct answer is B.