This is a sufficient assumption question, as indicated by the question stem: The conclusion above is properly drawn if which one of the following is assumed?
This is a very conditional-heavy stimulus.
Premise 1: /strike → increase wages
Premise 2: increase wages → sell sub
Conclusion: sell sub
Remember, conditionals have to be triggered in order for us to conclude anything from them. Since we’re trying to prove that Bell’s subsidiaries will be sold, we need something to trigger the first or second premise: either that there will not be a strike or that the wages will be increased.
Answer Choice (A) This does have anything to do with our premise or conclusion and it does help validate our conclusion. It doesn’t trigger our conditionals either.
Answer Choice (B) This is negating the necessary condition in the first premise, which would trigger backward, allowing us to conclude that the workers will do on strike. This answer choice also negates the sufficient condition in premise 2, which renders the rule useless. This is incorrect.
Correct Answer Choice (C) This triggers the first premise, which also triggers our second premise, leading to the conclusion that Bell’s subsidiaries will be sold.
Answer Choice (D) This AC is saying the president can increase wages; this does not mean that he will.
Answer Choice (E) This is additional information that does not clearly trigger our conditionals. The workers only wanting a wage increase does not help us validate the conclusion.
This is a Method of Reasoning question, and we know this because of the question stem: “The argument proceeds by..”
The argument starts out by saying that solutions to reduce healthcare costs can’t be found with our current system. Why? Well, because each party is trying to shift the costs onto the next party, including the patients. The author also says this is exactly what happened next in the 1980s reforms, and provides a visual explanation of what happened when we try to cut costs somewhere; it pops up in the same amount elsewhere. Then, he cites an example of this: the government tried to prevent patients from getting certain costs covered and then they had worse conditions afterward.
Lots happening here! The conclusion is the first sentence; everything laid out after lends support to this claim. Everything else is also unsupported and stands alone as premises. The second sentence most directly lends support to the conclusion. The third sentence mentions real life example of the situation described in the previous sentence, and provides a clear analogy to understand how the current healthcare system does not allow for actual cost reduction (push in on cost one place, it pops up somewhere else). The last sentence is just detailing an example of the reform.
Answer Choice (A) The tone of the passage certainly indicates that the author isn’t happy about shifting costs to the patient, but the argument also isn’t showing that shifting costs onto patients is contradictory; they are saying reducing costs under our system isn’t possible.
Answer Choice (B) The author doesn’t attribute fraudulent intent to anyone; he may not be happy about what the government and healthcare providers are doing, but he also is not saying they’re frauds or acting in fraudulent ways.
Correct Answer Choice (C) The argument is implying an analogy! The balloon air is an analogy for costs being passed off. This is how the argument tries to demonstrate the relationship of shifting, not reducing, costs between each party in healthcare.
Answer Choice (D) The author isn’t denying the possibility of a better system, he’s just saying that the one right now... ain’t it.
Answer Choice (E) There was no instance of cooperation in this stimulus.
This is a Method of Reasoning question, and we know this because of the question stem: “The advertisement employs which one of the following argumentative strategies?”
This is an argument by analogy. The ad puts forward the relationship between exercise of physical organs and better performance of muscles and physical organs. The ad then says that because your brain is a physical organ, taking action it could improve its performance. From that, the ad concludes that we should subscribe to Stimulus and take action by reading. This isn’t a great argument, but our job is to describe what’s happening, not access its strength or validity.
Answer Choice (A) The ad beings with “anyone who exercises knows...” That’s not experimental evidence.
Answer Choice (B) The ad does not ridicule; it’s trying to incentivize people.
Answer Choice (C) This is describing the last part of the last sentence: Stimulus will exercise the brain. However, we’re not describing a sentence in the argument, we have to describe the whole argument.
Answer Choice (D) “Careful analysis” is certainly not what this ad is doing when it comes to exploring what exercise is.
Correct Answer Choice (E) This is perfectly describing what an argument by analogy is: A and B are similar in one way; therefore they are both similar in another way.