OG 112 - Expert Help

IMO D (think so)

This argument talks about imports...I think that the wages part is insignificant

Can Some Expert guide me with correct approach for these type of Number-Assumption Questions

C is OA

mundasingh123 wrote:112. 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 theargument depends?

First of all, I want to start off by saying that I, too, find these kinds of stimuli very, very difficult. The information in them is dense and complex and it's really hard to get what you need out of it. However, like so many CR questions, it comes down to looking at the information and thinking of Alternative Explanations. Here's what we know:

1) B imports televisions from V, and also makes them domestically in B.
2) The number of televisions sold in B has not changed.
3) Fewer people making televisions in B.
Conclusion: More TVs imported from V.

The first step is to figure out why the author thinks this makes sense. Since the number of TVs sold is the same, then if the number of B TVs has gone down, the number of V TVs must have gone up. This makes sense except we aren't told that the number of B TVs has gone down; simply that the number of people making TVs in B has gone down. What's the alternative explanation? That these television assemblers in B are making more TVs faster. Then, even with fewer people making TVs in B, it's possible that they could be making the same number of TVs.

(C), then is the right answer, as it tells us that the assemblers in B are not working faster, thus eliminating this possible counterargument. If we negate (C), we learn that they're working faster, which would destroy the argument by proposing an alternative explanation.

How to deal with any such question:

1) Figure out what the Argument really is.
2) Think of an alternative explanation of the evidence, rather than the conclusion. Most often, the Argument is something along the lines of "X goes up, so Y had to go up too," when in fact "but Z went down" will change the situation.
3) For Weakener/Flaw, the answer will lead to an alternative explanation. For Strengthener/Assumption, the answer will deny that alternative explanation.

Always keep two things in mind on these questions:
1) SCOPE! (B) and (E) here are completely out-of-scope and (D) doesn't mention Borodia, which has to be part of the right answer for reasons discussed above.
2) For Assumptions questions, be very, very proactive with the Negation Test whenever you see a big "not" in the middle of an answer choice. It's very, very hard to understand what (C) means, but it's far easier to trace the effect of its negation.

Hope that helps!

Adam,Thanks for the Help.
Most often, the Argument is something along the lines of "X goes up, so Y had to go up too," when in fact "but Z went down"
Hi Adam I extracted the portion in bold above from your post.I didnt understand this particular point.Can You please elaborate

mundasingh123 wrote:Adam,Thanks for the Help.
Most often, the Argument is something along the lines of "X goes up, so Y had to go up too," when in fact "but Z went down"
Hi Adam I extracted the portion in bold above from your post.I didnt understand this particular point.Can You please elaborate

Sure, here's an easy little example:

The number of speeding tickets given out by police in Hudson County last year is twice what it was the preceding year. Since the number of accidents has remained the same, there is no reason to believe drivers are driving less safely. Clearly, there are more police setting speed traps now than there were before.

What could explain this other than more police? It's not exactly what I had suggested with my formula, but it's the same basic principle, and similar to the original question.