I too chose D...It seems to be the best choice..I was little bit inclined towards A, but does an increase in no. of TV assemblers necessarily means increase in no. of TV sets in Vernland? This is the assumption which we really don't have to use, as in D..

Am i missing something here?
What's the OA?

Ok guys.. lets focus on the conclusion and look for a much needed assumption for the conclusion to stand (defender assumption)

Therefore, updated trade statistics will probably indicate that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased.

We want to make sure that this statistic is true.


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

Lets negate this

The average number of hours it takes a Borodian television assembler to assemble a television has decreased significantly during the past three years

Uhmm this could weaken the argument or cast a doubt on the conclusion This could mean that more TV'S are being assembled by relatively less number of assemblers. Lest say they were assembling 1 television in amonth and the rate increased and now they are able to assemble 1 television a day.... This means more television is produced by a relatively less number of assemblers so it affects the statitstics abive that the number of televisions Borodia imports annually from Vernland has increased. May be more televisions are being produced in Borland


D

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

Lets negate this

The number of televisions assembled annually in Vernland has not increased significantly during the past three years

Fair enough. So what Vernland could have been producing 1000's of televisions to begin so it would ahve enough for itself and for export to Borland. We dont know so this is not a needed assumption for the connclusion to stand

Hence C

Would go for - B

I still feel A should be the answer