Governor's veto

fibbonnaci wrote:The State Constitution bans the legislature from reducing the benefit package of the state and local workers during their employment, but it does allow improvement of the package. Thus, the governor's veto power remains as the only possible obstacle to the new pension enhancement program for recently hired public school teachers.

The author of the argument is assuming which of the following?

(A) The governor wants to reduce the benefit of the package
(B) The new pension program is not part of the benefit package
(C) The legislature supports the new pension program
(D) The governor will probably veto the new pension program
(E) The State Constitution permits the governor to reduce the benefit package of employees during their employment

Source: Kaplan tests.

E is the answer.
Since E says that governer's veto power is the only obstacle, we can assume that state constitution permits the governer to reduce benifit package...
Anyway other optionsa are easily eliminated. so only option left is E.
whats the OA ?

IMO C

what is OA?

A. Governer's veto power being an obstacle does not mean that governor wants to reduce the package. No part of the argument supports this assumption.

B. If it is not a part of the package, then it breaks the whole argument. This cannot be an assumption. "The new pension program is a part of benefit package" actually links evidence to conclusion and this can be considered as one of the prephrased assumption.

C. It is just mentioned that it can allow improvement. Whether the legislature supports it or not cannot be assumed. Same as why A is wrong.

D. Same as A and C. It is not about will, its about can.

E. Thats the answer, State Govt permits the Governor to reduce the package.

I think C. Whats the OA?

(A) The governor wants to reduce the benefit of the package
Legislature cannot reduce the benefits and we dont know if the governor can or not. Additionally, the governors VETO might affect the pension ENHANCEMENT program, so nothing is getting reduced here.

(C) The legislature supports the new pension program
The governor's veto is the ONLY obstacle as per the argument, so legislature obviously supports it.

(E) The State Constitution permits the governor to reduce the benefit package of employees during their employment
As mentioned in A, We only know that the governor can veto for or against the pension ENHANCEMENT program, not reduction

Looks like E.

Not sure if C is an assumption, it does clearly say in the first line that it is a fact

sunil_snath wrote:I think C. Whats the OA?

(A) The governor wants to reduce the benefit of the package
Legislature cannot reduce the benefits and we dont know if the governor can or not. Additionally, the governors VETO might affect the pension ENHANCEMENT program, so nothing is getting reduced here.

(C) The legislature supports the new pension program
The governor's veto is the ONLY obstacle as per the argument, so legislature obviously supports it.

(E) The State Constitution permits the governor to reduce the benefit package of employees during their employment
As mentioned in A, We only know that the governor can veto for or against the pension ENHANCEMENT program, not reduction

This is why C is not the answer. From the passage its clear that C is a fact because its supported by passage. And we are looking for an assumption .. Since govt is the only obstacle, we can assume that it is given that power or authority

Well, here's what I think.

An assumption is an unstated premise that helps strengthen the conclusion. If the author needs to conclude that the governor is the only person who can veto against the pension enhancement program, he/she will need to assume that the legislature is supporting/will support it.

Apart from that if you also use the negation technique, C fits well there too.

NEGATE: The legislature may not support the new pension program.
This weakens the conclusion that governor's veto is the ONLY obstacle against the pension ENHANCEMENT program.

But I guess, we are all waiting on Fibbonnaci now

Hey Sunil_snath your logic is absolutely correct!
The OA is C.
Some real good explanations have been put forth here. Just in case anyone needs further clarification, just reply to this post. I would add my 2 cents to it.

fibbonnaci wrote:Hey Sunil_snath your logic is absolutely correct!
The OA is C.
Some real good explanations have been put forth here. Just in case anyone needs further clarification, just reply to this post. I would add my 2 cents to it.

Fibo,

I see this CR to be a "strengthen the argument rather than a assumption based question"

To support that plz do have a look in to https://www.beatthegmat.com/smoke-t49232.html

My line of reasoning is : here it follows a typical pattern something like A caused B and to state that ONLY caused B, we have 3 options:

1.B doesn't cause A

2.A & B didn't happen simultaneously.

3.No event Z has caused B.

U can replace the term cause with "impact/ effect/".


So by stating that Legislature do support the benefit programs hints me that Event Z had NO impact on B and only the governor's veto power(A) has the effect on B.

A:governor's veto power

B :obstacle on the package.

Z: Legislature

Fibo could u plz share ur thought process. There is no qualms/second opinion reg the source. Technicall speaking, I should have not comeup with this post.But I felt an urge to share my opinion..

Agreed strengthening the arguments are based on affirmative actions on assumptions. SO may be i culd see this overlapping.

sunil_snath wrote:Well, here's what I think.

An assumption is an unstated premise that helps strengthen the conclusion. If the author needs to conclude that the governor is the only person who can veto against the pension enhancement program, he/she will need to assume that the legislature is supporting/will support it.

Apart from that if you also use the negation technique, C fits well there too.

NEGATE: The legislature may not support the new pension program.
This weakens the conclusion that governor's veto is the ONLY obstacle against the pension ENHANCEMENT program.

But I guess, we are all waiting on Fibbonnaci now

Perfect logic here, well done!

Just to chime in on (E), here's why it's wrong: The pension enhancement program is an enhanced program for new teachers. Thus, the governor's ability to reduce programs of existing employees is outside the scope of the passage.

my answer is E, reason: E isthe only answer that link "State Constitution" and "governor" together. what is OA

It can't be E. As stated above, it's way out of the scope of the argument.

Argument: The governor's veto power is the only possible obstacle/block toe the pension enhancement program.

Whether the governor is permitted to reduce the benefits is not a premise that is absolutely necessary for the aforementioned argument to hold. In fact, to my understanding in the argument, the governor's veto power is totally independent of anything the legislature has to say. E just throws in a bunch of familiar words to make it 'sound' like a tempting choice, a technique that is very common. This tricks a lot of people that do not fully grasp and concentrate on the main argument.

The official answer is E. But I don't understand why? Can anyone explain