Critical Reasoning

In the early 1960s, Myanmar was the richest country in Asia, but then it closed its economy to the outside world and is now the poorest country in the region. However, Myanmar is now opening up its economy to the outside world once again, and so will soon regain its former glory. Thus it makes sense for smart investors to invest in Myanmar.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) A closed economy will rapidly deplete the financial resources of a country

(B) The countries that dealt with Myanmar in 1962 will still be interested in dealing with it

(C) If Myanmar does not open up its economy to the outside world, it will continue to remain poor.

(D) The severe internal unrest that has continued in Myanmar for the last several years is not responsible for its current financial state.

(E) At least some smart investors are currently aware of Myanmar's past glory

aditya8062 wrote:In the early 1960s, Myanmar was the richest country in Asia, but then it closed its economy to the outside world and is now the poorest country in the region. However, Myanmar is now opening up its economy to the outside world once again, and so will soon regain its former glory. Thus it makes sense for smart investors to invest in Myanmar.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) A closed economy will rapidly deplete the financial resources of a country

(B) The countries that dealt with Myanmar in 1962 will still be interested in dealing with it

(C) If Myanmar does not open up its economy to the outside world, it will continue to remain poor.

(D) The severe internal unrest that has continued in Myanmar for the last several years is not responsible for its current financial state.

(E) At least some smart investors are currently aware of Myanmar's past glory

Conclusion: It makes sense for smart investors to invest in Myanmar.
The assumption is WHAT MUST BE TRUE for this conclusion to be valid.
Apply the NEGATION TEST.
Since the correct answer is what must be true for the conclusion to be valid, when the correct answer is NEGATED, the conclusion will be rendered INVALID.

Answer choice D, negated:
The severe internal unrest that has continued in Myanmar for the last several years is responsible for its current financial state.
If there is SEVERE INTERNAL UNREST in Myanmar, then the argument CANNOT conclude that it makes sense for smart investors to invest in Myanmar.
Since the negation of D invalidates the conclusion, D is the necessary assumption: WHAT MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to be valid.

The correct answer is D.

aditya8062 wrote:In the early 1960s, Myanmar was the richest country in Asia, but then it closed its economy to the outside world and is now the poorest country in the region. However, Myanmar is now opening up its economy to the outside world once again, and so will soon regain its former glory. Thus it makes sense for smart investors to invest in Myanmar.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) A closed economy will rapidly deplete the financial resources of a country

(B) The countries that dealt with Myanmar in 1962 will still be interested in dealing with it

(C) If Myanmar does not open up its economy to the outside world, it will continue to remain poor.

(D) The severe internal unrest that has continued in Myanmar for the last several years is not responsible for its current financial state.

(E) At least some smart investors are currently aware of Myanmar's past glory

I was confused b/w B and D(selected D finally)
Reason for negating B:Even if the countries that were interested with Myanmar will not be interested now doesn't mean that other countries cannot deal with Myanmar.

Reason for selecting D:If the unrest caused was the reason for the current financial state then there is a possibility that even after reopening the economy to the world,the financial crisis will continue.

Why not E.

After negating E ,we get "Some smart investors are not aware myanmar's past glory".

So does it due that,past glory may not point to economical status of Myanmar or what ??

Why not E.

After negating E ,we get "Some smart investors are not aware myanmar's past glory".

So does it due that,past glory may not point to economical status of Myanmar or what ??

negation of E is not critical here as compare to negation of D ,

negation of D makes the argument irrelevant

see - in case country condition is still UPSET ddue to internal issues no body will interested in
business in myanmar

bighnarajeast wrote:Why not E.

After negating E ,we get "Some smart investors are not aware myanmar's past glory".

So does it due that,past glory may not point to economical status of Myanmar or what ??

Answer choice E: At least some smart investors are currently aware of Myanmar's past glory.
The opposite of some is NOT SOME = NONE.
E, negated:
No smart investors are currently aware of Myanmar's past glory.
So what?
If Myanmar regains its former glory by opening up its economy, then the conclusion that smart investors SHOULD invest in Myanmar remains valid -- even if these smart investors are not aware of Myanmar's past glory.
Since the negation of E does not invalidate the conclusion, eliminate E.

I am not entirely convinced with answer D.
Option C says
If Myanmar does not open up its economy to the outside world, it will continue to remain poor.

So its negation would say
If Myanmar open up its economy to the outside world, it will continue to remain poor.

So negating the choice is weakening the conclusion then it should be answer.
Myanmar was rick and had glory but the opening the economy will fix and bring back glory.

Hence small investors should invest money.

I mean without assuming the cause of remain a poor country we can't be certain for small investors to do investing.

Please correct me.

aditya8062 wrote:In the early 1960s, Myanmar was the richest country in Asia, but then it closed its economy to the outside world and is now the poorest country in the region. However, Myanmar is now opening up its economy to the outside world once again, and so will soon regain its former glory. Thus it makes sense for smart investors to invest in Myanmar.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?

(A) A closed economy will rapidly deplete the financial resources of a country

(B) The countries that dealt with Myanmar in 1962 will still be interested in dealing with it

(C) If Myanmar does not open up its economy to the outside world, it will continue to remain poor.

(D) The severe internal unrest that has continued in Myanmar for the last several years is not responsible for its current financial state.

(E) At least some smart investors are currently aware of Myanmar's past glory

What is the conclusion here?
It makes sense for smart investors to invest in Myanmar.

What is this conclusion based on?
In the 1960s, before Myanmar closed its economy, it was the richest country in Asia. Therefore, if it reopens its economy, it will attain its former glory.

Let us now look at each answer choice:
A: First of all, this is a broad answer choice that does not refer to Myanmar. This is, at best, giving a possible explanation for why a country's financial resources may be depleted. Let us negate it: a closed economy will not deplete the financial resources of a country. So what? It does not break our conclusion.

B: For Myanmar to prosper, do the same countries that dealt with it in the 60s need to do business with it again? No! Any business is good business. In any case, this has nothing to do with whether investors should invest in Myanmar.

C: This is more of a prediction than an assumption. Let us negate this: if Myanmar opens up its economy to the world, it will not remain poor. But our conclusion is that smart investors should invest in Myanmar - not whether Myanmar will become rich or poor. Negation of this choice does not break this conclusion.

D: Correct. Let us negate D: The severe internal unrest that has continued in Myanmar is responsible for its current financial state. What does this mean? That there is some factor deterring investors from investing in Myanmar. Negation breaks the argument - hence, the right answer.

E: The question is not whether the investors know about Myanmar's past glory - the question is whether it is a wise move to invest in Myanmar now. Thus, E is also incorrect.

Thus, D is the correct answer.

amit.lohchab wrote:I am not entirely convinced with answer D.
Option C says
If Myanmar does not open up its economy to the outside world, it will continue to remain poor.

So its negation would say
If Myanmar open up its economy to the outside world, it will continue to remain poor.

So negating the choice is weakening the conclusion then it should be answer.
Myanmar was rick and had glory but the opening the economy will fix and bring back glory.

Hence small investors should invest money.

I mean without assuming the cause of remain a poor country we can't be certain for small investors to do investing.

Please correct me.

Answer choice C: If Myanmar does not open up its economy to the outside world, it will continue to remain poor.
The argument states as a PREMISE -- as a FACT that cannot be disputed -- that Myanmar is now opening up its economy to the outside world.
Since C discusses what might happen if Myanmar does NOT open up its economy, C is beyond the scope of the argument.

Also, a more proper negation of If X, then Y is If X, then NOT Y.
Answer choice C, negated:
If Myanmar does not open up its economy to the outside world, it will NOT continue to remain poor.
Again, since the argument states as a fact that Myanmar is now opening up its economy, the negation of C has no effect on the conclusion.

One more thing: it is VERY UNLIKELY that the correct answer to an assumption question will be a conditional statement.
Generally, the correct answer will be a straightforward statement that LINKS the premise to the conclusion.