A really tricky causal reasoning question! a 700 level one.

[[email protected]]

The media claim that the economy is entering a phase of growth and prosperity. They point to lower unemployment rates and increased productivity. This analysis is false, though. The number of people filing for bankruptcy has increased every month for the last six months, and bankruptcy lawyers report that they are busier than they have been in years.

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

A] Unemployment rates are not useful indicators of growth and prosperity.

B] Economic growth cannot be measured in terms of productivity.

C] Legislation has not been recently passed to make legal bankruptcy easier to obtain.

D] There has not been an increase in the number of bankruptcy lawyers.

E] The media often misrepresent the current state of economic affairs.\



The OA is a C.

The only important question here is that in this question, what causes what i.e whether X causes Y or Y causes X.

i.e According to the author of the stimulus, the number of bankruptcy cases has increased in the last 6 months and the lawyers are getting busier than ever before. This factor causes the author to prove that the economy has not entered the growth and the prosperity phase.

So in simple words you can say that X causes Not Y.

Now to strengthen this causal reasoning, option C says that X is not caused due to any other reason. How does it matter. In fact the option should be related to the economy.

The only question that I have is that what causes what...

Actually the author is assuming both the things like X causes Y at the same time Y causes X.

In this case the author is saying something like X and Y both are interrelated i.e X>Y and X<Y both are implied. so even if you say that X is caused due to some other parameter, then one aspect of the argument is affected and hence the author's argument gets affected. Something like Data Sufficiency question.

Please any of the experts help in this question.... what I said is correct or no???

[patanjali.purpose]

The media claim that the economy is entering a phase of growth and prosperity. They point to lower unemployment rates and increased productivity. This analysis is false, though. The number of people filing for bankruptcy has increased every month for the last six months, and bankruptcy lawyers report that they are busier than they have been in years.

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

A] Unemployment rates are not useful indicators of growth and prosperity.

B] Economic growth cannot be measured in terms of productivity.

C] Legislation has not been recently passed to make legal bankruptcy easier to obtain.

D] There has not been an increase in the number of bankruptcy lawyers.

E] The media often misrepresent the current state of economic affairs.\



The OA is a C.

The only important question here is that in this question, what causes what i.e whether X causes Y or Y causes X.

i.e According to the author of the stimulus, the number of bankruptcy cases has increased in the last 6 months and the lawyers are getting busier than ever before. This factor causes the author to prove that the economy has not entered the growth and the prosperity phase.

So in simple words you can say that X causes Not Y.

Now to strengthen this causal reasoning, option C says that X is not caused due to any other reason. How does it matter. In fact the option should be related to the economy.

Its better to rephrae "X causes Not Y". Say 'NOT Y' = Z;

Now relationship is "X CAUSES Z"

X = Increase in nos of people filing for B
Y = economy entering a phase of growth and prosperity
Z = economy NOT entering a phase of growth and prosperity = economy entering a phase of RECESSION (just simplistic)

Now our relationship is "INCREASE in B application implies ECONOMY IS ENTERING RECESSION

We can strengthen this in 2 ways:
1) prove that there is no problem in this causality ie "INCREASE in B application INDEED implies ECONOMY IS ENTERING RECESSION"

2) prove that there is no alternate reason for Z to happen

How can we show there is no problem in causal relationship of X TO Z - one of the ways is to show that THERE IS NO OTHER REASON FOR X ("INCREASE IN B APPLICATION"). This is shown by the fact that NO OTHER FACTOR LED TO INCREAS IN B APPLICATION.

It makes the argument bit stronger (IMO this is a strengthen question than an assumption question)

[GmatKiss]

The media claim that the economy is entering a phase of growth and prosperity. They point to lower unemployment rates and increased productivity. This analysis is false, though. The number of people filing for bankruptcy has increased every month for the last six months, and bankruptcy lawyers report that they are busier than they have been in years.

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

A] Unemployment rates are not useful indicators of growth and prosperity.

B] Economic growth cannot be measured in terms of productivity.

C] Legislation has not been recently passed to make legal bankruptcy easier to obtain.

D] There has not been an increase in the number of bankruptcy lawyers.

E] The media often misrepresent the current state of economic affairs.

A and B can be eliminated as both are the same and support only one ( Economic growth/Unemployment )
E is extreme

Between C and D now!

Assumption is usually not dealt with in the passage, So C, although i could not find a strong reason to eliminate D.

Good Q

[patanjali.purpose]

The media claim that the economy is entering a phase of growth and prosperity. They point to lower unemployment rates and increased productivity. This analysis is false, though. The number of people filing for bankruptcy has increased every month for the last six months, and bankruptcy lawyers report that they are busier than they have been in years.

D] There has not been an increase in the number of bankruptcy lawyers.

Assumption is usually not dealt with in the passage, So C, although i could not find a strong reason to eliminate D.

"INCREASE in Bankruptcy application" --> ECONOMY IS ENTERING RECESSION. D is giving alternative reason for "INCREASE in Bankruptcy application". This means since MORE BANKRUPTCY LAWYERS --> MORE BANKRUPTCY APPLICATION. But this relationship has another hidden assumption ..that is PEOPLE WERE NOT FILING BANKRUPTCY APPLICATION WERE FEWER BANKRUPTCY were available. IMO we cannot make this additional assumption and therefore D is not correct

[GMATGuruNY]

The media claim that the economy is entering a phase of growth and prosperity. They point to lower unemployment rates and increased productivity. This analysis is false, though. The number of people filing for bankruptcy has increased every month for the last six months, and bankruptcy lawyers report that they are busier than they have been in years.

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

A] Unemployment rates are not useful indicators of growth and prosperity.

B] Economic growth cannot be measured in terms of productivity.

C] Legislation has not been recently passed to make legal bankruptcy easier to obtain.

D] There has not been an increase in the number of bankruptcy lawyers.

E] The media often misrepresent the current state of economic affairs.\



The OA is a C.

This CR concludes that the increase in the number of people filing for BANKRUPTCY proves that the ECONOMY has not entered a phase of growth and prosperity.
The assumption is that there is NO OTHER REASON for the increase in the number of people filing for bankruptcy.

Answer choice C, negated: Legislation has recently been passed to make legal bankruptcy easier to obtain.
The negation of C implies that the increase in the number of people filing for bankruptcy is due to the RECENTLY PASSED LEGISLATION, invalidating the conclusion that the ECONOMY is to blame for the increase. Since the negation of C invalidates the conclusion, C is the necessary assumption: WHAT MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to be valid.

The correct answer is C.

The negation of D could potentially STRENGTHEN the conclusion. If there are MORE bankruptcy lawyers, and they are BUSIER than they have been in years -- as is stated in the passage -- then the conclusion that the economy is not in phase of prosperity is STRENGTHENED. Since the negation of D could strengthen the conclusion, D is NOT something that MUST BE TRUE for the conclusion to be valid.
Eliminate D.

[karthikpandian19]

I too fell for D,

But after seeing the explanations of NEGATING and then finding the answer.......now got clarified.


Nice question.

The media claim that the economy is entering a phase of growth and prosperity. They point to lower unemployment rates and increased productivity. This analysis is false, though. The number of people filing for bankruptcy has increased every month for the last six months, and bankruptcy lawyers report that they are busier than they have been in years.

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

A] Unemployment rates are not useful indicators of growth and prosperity.

B] Economic growth cannot be measured in terms of productivity.

C] Legislation has not been recently passed to make legal bankruptcy easier to obtain.

D] There has not been an increase in the number of bankruptcy lawyers.

E] The media often misrepresent the current state of economic affairs.\



The OA is a C.

The only important question here is that in this question, what causes what i.e whether X causes Y or Y causes X.

i.e According to the author of the stimulus, the number of bankruptcy cases has increased in the last 6 months and the lawyers are getting busier than ever before. This factor causes the author to prove that the economy has not entered the growth and the prosperity phase.

So in simple words you can say that X causes Not Y.

Now to strengthen this causal reasoning, option C says that X is not caused due to any other reason. How does it matter. In fact the option should be related to the economy.

The only question that I have is that what causes what...

Actually the author is assuming both the things like X causes Y at the same time Y causes X.

In this case the author is saying something like X and Y both are interrelated i.e X>Y and X<Y both are implied. so even if you say that X is caused due to some other parameter, then one aspect of the argument is affected and hence the author's argument gets affected. Something like Data Sufficiency question.

Please any of the experts help in this question.... what I said is correct or no???

[jimmyjimmy]

y r dh answers made dark??

[karthikpandian19]

Hey,

In this BTG forum, the answers are exposed before once we try to attend the questions on our own. So the answers are HIDDEN

y r dh answers made dark??

[Gaurav 2013-fall]

IMO C. I did what Mitch did and got the answer.