112. The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that inneighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffson Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the numberof televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a drop inthe 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?
(A) The number of television assemblers in Vernlandhas increased by at least as much as thenumber of television assemblers in Borodia hasdecreased.
(B) Televisions assembled in Vernland have featurestelevisions assembled in Borodia do not
have.
(C) The average number of hours it takes a Borodiantelevision assembler to assemble a televisionhas not decreased signifi cantly during the pastthree years.
(D) The number of televisions assembled annually inVernland has increased signifi cantly during thepast three years.
(E) The difference between the hourly wage oftelevision assemblers in Vernland and the hourly
wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years.
C is the correct answer, and I agree.
But I still have two questions about this problem.
Q1: The first sentense :"The average hourly wage of television assemblers inVernland has long been significantly lower than that inneighboring Borodia. "
I think this sentense has no use at all because we can still solve the problem without this information. So why does it give this premise here?? To confuse us?? OR, am I wrong??
Q2: The second sentense: "Since Borodia dropped all tariffson Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the numberof televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed"
Is there any causality between these two events? I mean why because "Borodia dropped all tariffson Vernlandian televisions" , the numberof televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed??? I find no relationship between the two events.
So plz help me!!!!Thanks a lot!
Which of the following is an assumption on which theargument depends?
(A) The number of television assemblers in Vernlandhas increased by at least as much as thenumber of television assemblers in Borodia hasdecreased.
(B) Televisions assembled in Vernland have featurestelevisions assembled in Borodia do not
have.
(C) The average number of hours it takes a Borodiantelevision assembler to assemble a televisionhas not decreased signifi cantly during the pastthree years.
(D) The number of televisions assembled annually inVernland has increased signifi cantly during thepast three years.
(E) The difference between the hourly wage oftelevision assemblers in Vernland and the hourly
wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years.
C is the correct answer, and I agree.
But I still have two questions about this problem.
Q1: The first sentense :"The average hourly wage of television assemblers inVernland has long been significantly lower than that inneighboring Borodia. "
I think this sentense has no use at all because we can still solve the problem without this information. So why does it give this premise here?? To confuse us?? OR, am I wrong??
Q2: The second sentense: "Since Borodia dropped all tariffson Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the numberof televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed"
Is there any causality between these two events? I mean why because "Borodia dropped all tariffson Vernlandian televisions" , the numberof televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed??? I find no relationship between the two events.
So plz help me!!!!Thanks a lot!
