Critical Reasoning

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.

OA after some discussions.

Should be C. Otherwise the politician can not claim the reduction in unemployment.

Clearly the answer is B.

If the reduction in the percent of people who are looking for job is because some of them have stopped working or looking for work, then politicians claim that his administration's business-friendly policies have helped reduce the level of unemployment among those willing to work is wrong.

For me the fight is betwen B and C
If you negate both statements u will see that C fails the negation test.

Hence IMO -- B

paes wrote: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.

OA after some discussions.

I strongly believe the correct answer is B.

If > 2% population working and willing to work have stopped working and looking at the start of the politician's term, the reduction has nothing to do with his policy. In other words, it weakens the argument. when we negate the answer choice, then it weaken the arguments. Then, it should be the correct answer for the question.

Hope that helps

IMO B

Should be B. Please do post the OA.

OA is B.

paes wrote:OA is B.

Hey can you please tell me the source of this question , because I dont think the correct answer should be B .

Reason : Option B states that

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.

If this was true then it weakens the mayor's conclusion that states that its was because of his policies that there was a reduction in jobs .


Infact the only options that bridges the gap between the conclusion and premis is E that sates that mayor's policies allowed firms to hire more people and created more jobs .

I hope this makes sense . I may be wrong .

Any addition thoughts are welcome .

Hi rockeyb,

choice B is in fact correct.

The politician argues that the cause of the reduced fraction of people looking for work is something good about his administration. But it could be because people simply got frustrated and stopped looking for work. The author is assuming that this is not the cause. Because the percentage went from 7 to 5, the author is assuming that <2% stopped looking for work. If 2% or >2% of people stopped looking for work, then the politician's argument is defeated as it would indicate that the administration's business-friendly policies was not the cause of the reduced percentage; instead, the cause would be people losing hope of getting a job.

Testluv wrote:Hi rockeyb,

choice B is in fact correct.

The politician argues that the cause of the reduced fraction of people looking for work is something good about his administration. But it could be because people simply got frustrated and stopped looking for work. The author is assuming that this is not the cause. Because the percentage went from 7 to 5, the author is assuming that <2% stopped looking for work. If 2% or >2% of people stopped looking for work, then the politician's argument is defeated as it would indicate that the administration's business-friendly policies was not the cause of the reduced percentage; instead, the cause would be people losing hope of getting a job.

Hey Testluv ,

Thanks for your reply .

I got the point you are trying to make here . The difference is between less than 2% and 2% or more than 2% .

Phew!!! need to read carefully .

Thanks again .

thanks testluv.

You have given a perfect explanation.

I also selected E initially.

Source : 800score

paes wrote:thanks testluv.

You have given a perfect explanation.

I also selected E initially.

Source : 800score

Thanks. I can see why choice E is tempting. But he doesn't have to assume that there was a "direct" effect.

Hi TestLuv,

If politician will be making an assumption which will strengthen his argument which in case should be 'E', whereas B negates his argument...

Can you please explain it further.

Hi TestLuv,

Cud you explain why E is incorrect - is it bcoz of firms to hire more workers (numbers) or something else.

thx