government employees

This topic has expert replies
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 9:08 am
Thanked: 10 times
Followed by:1 members

government employees

by gmatrant » Thu Dec 20, 2012 1:06 am
International Policy Adviser: People over the age of 65 are underrepresented in the government of Country X. Because the government sets the country's policy priorities and passes new laws, the underrepresentation of people over the age of 65 results in a significant lack of consideration for issues important to this age group, such as pensions, age-related welfare, and employment discrimination; only an increase in the number of government officials will solve the problem.

Which of the following best describes an assumption implicit to the international policy adviser's argument?

a)A significant increase in the size of Country X's government would be required in order to increase the representation of people over the age of 65 in the government.

b)A significant increase in the representation of people over the age of 65 in Country X's government would result in an increase in the consideration for issues affecting people in this age group.

c)A significant increase in funding toward educating the government about issues affecting people over age 65 would result in more serious consideration for issues affecting people in this age group.

d)A significant increase in funding for adult education targeted to people over age 65 would result in an increase in the number of such people in Country X's government.

e)A significant increase in the representation of people over the age of 65 in Country X's government would have to precede any increase in the number of high-ranking government officials who are over the age of 65.

[spoiler]OA is B. But the last line in the argument states that "only an increase in the number of government officials will solve the problem" - So from this why can't choice A be correct? Please explain . I don't deny B though. But why can't A be correct as well?[/spoiler]
A kudos or thanks would do great if my answer has helped you :)
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 142
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 3:31 am
Location: New Delhi
Thanked: 20 times
Followed by:3 members

by aman88 » Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:36 am
In assumption questions, you should try to negate the answer choices on which you are stuck and see whether the conclusion is still valid after negation. If the conclusion falls apart after negation, that is your answer.

Lets try this here.

Conclusion: People over the age of 65 are underrepresented in the government of Country X and this underrepresentation results in a lack of consideration for issues important.

The correct answer when negated will deny this conclusion.
B: A significant increase in the representation of people over the age of 65 in Country X's government would result in an increase in the consideration for issues affecting people in this age group.

Negate: A significant increase in the representation of people over the age of 65 in Country X's government may not result in an increase in the consideration for issues affecting people in this age group.

After negating it, the conclusion does not hold true. Therefore B is the right answer.

As with A.
A. A significant increase in the size of Country X's government would be required in order to increase the representation of people over the age of 65 in the government.

Negate: A significant increase in the size of Country X's government may not be required in order to increase the representation of people over the age of 65 in the government.

After negating choice A, conclusion is still valid. Therefore, A is NOT the right answer.

Thanks.