Critical Reasoning

The average hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland has long been significantly lower than that in neighboring Borodia. Since Borodia dropped all tariffs on Vernlandian televisions three years ago, the number of televisions sold annually in Borodia has not changed. However, recent statistics show a drop in the 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 the argument depends?

A. The number of television assemblers in Vernland has increased by at least as much as the number of television assemblers in Borodia has decreased.

B. Televisions assembled in Vernland have features that televisions assembled in Borodia do not have.

C. The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has not decreased significantly during the past three years.

D. The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years.

E. The difference between the hourly wage of television assemblers in Vernland and the hourly wage of television assemblers in Borodia is likely to decrease in the next few years

Answer is C

Certainly answer is C because that breaks the argument. But what is wrong with D ?
How can i eliminate D ?

The explanation says,"The argument does not depend upon this being so: Vernland's domestic TV sales may have decreased by more than its imports into Borodia have increased.

I assumed that the drop in the number of television assemblers in Borodia has led to lower production of T.V's and this has increased the imports from Vernland. But with this import the production of TV in Vernland has also increased.


Thanks & Regards
Sachin
_____________________________________________
Yes, I am tired, but it doesn't mean that i am out.

Dear Sachin,

I will break my answer to your query into 2 parts and will try to explain my thought process will arriving at the right answer.

Why I chose [spoiler]Option C:[/spoiler]

1) While reading the argument itself, I was able to arrive at the assumption that strengthens this argument. Please note 2 significant points that point to Option C.

Premises:

First, the no of televisions sold in Borodia has remained the same.
Second, the no of assembly workers in Borodia has reduced.

But then you ask yourself that "so what if the number of assembly workers in Borodia has reduced?" The other remaining assembly workers can increase their efficiency (assembly per worker) and produce the same number of TV's that were produced in Borodia before.

But that is not the case. Borodia is not producing the same number of TV's and is instead importing from Vernland ( As per Conclusion). That means that the assembly workers of Borodia have not increased their efficiency and it is the same as before. Hence Option C



[spoiler]Why not Option D:[/spoiler]

How do we know that to export to Borodia, Vernland had to increase its production. It may be possible that Vernland reduced its internal sales. We do not have any information on sales in Vernland. Hence we dont know whether this is the correct assumption. It may be true and it may not be true. Also I dont see any direct correlation between production in Vernland and imports to Borodia. This option does not affects the conclusion at all. Neutral option.

Tip: If there is a confusion or probability that a situation may exist and may not exist, choose the one that is definitely true. In this case, Option C is definitely true.


Good question by the way!!! :)In strengthen and weaken questions these days, I usually try to guess the answers before hand these days while reading the argument and it is working wonders

Cheers
TJ

turbo jet wrote:Also I dont see any direct correlation between production in Vernland and imports to Borodia. This option does not affects the conclusion at all.

Turbo jet thanks for your reply. But don't you think so that demand for TV in one country will also increase the production of T.V in another country. For example, Demand in country B is not met because the number of people working as TV assemblers are dropped and this has led to import from country V. Now in country V exports have increased, which has led to increase in the production of T.V's in country V. Now question arises how ? In country V domestic production was already there and now this export to country B has increased the production.

How is D better than C ?

Sachin
_____________________________________________
Yes, I am tired, but it doesn't mean that i am out.

Received a PM on this one...first, very nice explanation by Turbo Jet.

Sachin - I see where you are coming from, but if you follow down the "what if?" path you can make most answer choices sound reasonable to yourself.

Here is a tip: "The most steps required to get from the answer choice to the conclusion loses." Or just "the most steps loses" for short.

Look at Choice C, what needs to be true for this to work? Well as Turbo said above - if the workers are far more efficient then a smaller number of assemblers could produce the same number of TVs. This is basically one step from A.C. to conclusion.

What about D? "The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has increased significantly during the past three years." What if this is not true?? Does this harm the conclusion? In other words, if the number of TVs assembled in Vernland has not increased significantly does that mean that TVs imported to Bordia from Vernland will not have increased?

Well this takes several steps. We need to assume that Vernland did not already produce enough TVs three years ago to send plenty to Bordia. We need to assume that domestic demand did not drop. We need to assume that Vernland did not lose some other trade partner and just send those TVs to Bordia...in other words, there are lots of ways that Vernland could increase the number of TVs sent to Bordia without Vernland having "significantly increased production."

If you choose D you are making lots of additional assumptions (taking lots of required steps) to reach the conclusion.

Actually I just re-read your question in the post just above this one and you have lots of steps there! You say "Demand in country B is not met because the number of people working as TV assemblers are dropped and this has led to import from country V. Now in country V exports have increased, which has led to increase in the production of T.V's in country V."

Does that make sense? Too many steps compared to C.

Dear Sachin,

A very pertinent point that David brought out in his excellent discussion of why 'D' should be eliminated:

"there are lots of ways that Vernland could increase the number of TVs sent to Bordia without Vernland having "significantly increased production."

That's the reason we eliminate Option D because the argument does not depend on the assumption that Vernland should increase production. It does not matter whether Vernland has increased production or not for the argument.

Cheers
TJ

Excellent explanations turbo jet and David. Thank you!

Thank you so much David and Turbo jet. Got some very useful points.

Regards
Sachin

Great explanations. Crystal Clear!!