-
prab.sahi06
- Junior | Next Rank: 30 Posts
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:06 pm
Timer
00:00
Your Answer
A
B
C
D
E
Global Stats
Editorial: Our city's public transportation agency is facing a budget shortfall. The fastest growing part of the budget has been employee retirement benefits, which are exceptionally generous. Unless the budget shortfall is resolved, transportation service will be cut, and many transportation employees will lose their jobs. Thus, it would be in the employees' best interest for their union to accept cuts in retirement benefits.
Which of the following is an assumption the editorial's argument requires?
(A) The transportation employees' union should not accept cuts in retirement benefits if doing so would not be in the employees' best interest.
(B) The only feasible way for the agency to resolve the budget shortfall would involve cutting transportation service and eliminating jobs.
(C) Other things being equal, it is in the transportation employees' interest to have exceptionally generous retirement benefits.
(D) Cutting the retirement benefits would help resolve the agency's budget shortfall.
(E) The transportation employees' union will not accept cuts in retirement benefits if doing so will not allow more transportation employees to keep their jobs.
Experts can you please tell why option B is wrong.
Here is my line of thinking
What is my conclusion?
Taking cuts in retirement benefits which are generous will help us with extra funds that can be used for transportation budget shortfall.
Now option B is not attacking this conclusion.Its not touching the specifics of conclusion..rather its just talking about ways to curb budget shortfall and doesnt talk about how reducing retirement benefits will help curb the shortfall in transportation budget shortfall at all.There can be other ways of budget shortfall apart from cutting transportation service and eliminating jobs. Say may be selling their vehicles
or other infra assets.But ,it doesn't touch the conclusion reducing retirement benefits will help curtail transportation budget shortfall.
Another way to look a it.(NEGATION)
Lets negate option B.
The only feasible way for the agency to resolve the budget shortfall would involve cutting transportation service and eliminating jobs
Negation :There are other feasible way for the agency to resolve the budget shortfall which would not involve cutting transportation service and eliminating jobs
Ask the question: Does the negated choice shatter the conclusion that retirement benefts should be cut to make up for the transportation budget shortfall.
No..We are not concerned about other ways .We are just focusing on the specifics of conclusion how reducing retirements benefits will affect..
The point is B may a strengthener but the argument can live without it .(Assumptions cant be could be true)
Which of the following is an assumption the editorial's argument requires?
(A) The transportation employees' union should not accept cuts in retirement benefits if doing so would not be in the employees' best interest.
(B) The only feasible way for the agency to resolve the budget shortfall would involve cutting transportation service and eliminating jobs.
(C) Other things being equal, it is in the transportation employees' interest to have exceptionally generous retirement benefits.
(D) Cutting the retirement benefits would help resolve the agency's budget shortfall.
(E) The transportation employees' union will not accept cuts in retirement benefits if doing so will not allow more transportation employees to keep their jobs.
Experts can you please tell why option B is wrong.
Here is my line of thinking
What is my conclusion?
Taking cuts in retirement benefits which are generous will help us with extra funds that can be used for transportation budget shortfall.
Now option B is not attacking this conclusion.Its not touching the specifics of conclusion..rather its just talking about ways to curb budget shortfall and doesnt talk about how reducing retirement benefits will help curb the shortfall in transportation budget shortfall at all.There can be other ways of budget shortfall apart from cutting transportation service and eliminating jobs. Say may be selling their vehicles
or other infra assets.But ,it doesn't touch the conclusion reducing retirement benefits will help curtail transportation budget shortfall.
Another way to look a it.(NEGATION)
Lets negate option B.
The only feasible way for the agency to resolve the budget shortfall would involve cutting transportation service and eliminating jobs
Negation :There are other feasible way for the agency to resolve the budget shortfall which would not involve cutting transportation service and eliminating jobs
Ask the question: Does the negated choice shatter the conclusion that retirement benefts should be cut to make up for the transportation budget shortfall.
No..We are not concerned about other ways .We are just focusing on the specifics of conclusion how reducing retirements benefits will affect..
The point is B may a strengthener but the argument can live without it .(Assumptions cant be could be true)
