- Thu Jun 05, 2025 1:34 pm
#113108
Hi BrainDrain,
This assumption question can be quite tricky.
The argument begins by noting what happens "when a group of people starts a company" (my emphasis). This detail about a group (as opposed to a single individual) becomes important to the argument. In this situation, the group of founders "usually serve as sources both of funding and of skills in marketing, management, and technical matters." One important point to note is that the group serves as these sources. This does not mean that individual members of the group have to serve as sources of both funding and skills.
The argument then continues by stating that a single individual generally cannot provide all of the funding and these skills needed to found a company. Notice that the argument does not mention what companies that are founded by a single individual do in order to solve this problem. If we wanted to weaken this argument, we might want an answer that addresses how companies that are founded by a single individual actually can solve this problem by hiring other experts, outsourcing it, etc..
The argument concludes that "companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed than companies founded by individuals" (my emphasis).
Notice that "likely to succeed" is new information in the conclusion that was not mentioned in the premises, and the correct answer will likely be a Supporter Assumption that links this idea back to the premises to close a gap in the logic of the argument.
Answer B states: "some founding members of successful companies can provide both funding and skills in marketing, management, or technical matters" (my emphasis).
This answer seems very similar to the information provided in the first premise of the argument, but there is one important difference. The word "some," which means "at least one," in this answer is referring to specific individual founding members rather than the group as a whole. This answer is basically stating that there is a least one member of the founders who can provide both funding and skills. This is not required for the argument. If some founders just provide funding and other founders just provide skills, that is completely fine.
Answer C addresses the missing piece of the argument, which is that new companies are more likely to succeed when the funding and skills comes from the founders than from nonfounders. Since companies that are founded by a single individual will probably need to hire other people (i.e. nonfounders) in order to obtain the necessary funding and skills (since a single individual generally doesn't have all of these), this answer bridges the gap in the argument. This answer links the conclusion (about companies founded by groups being more successful) back to the premises about the founders being able to provide these skills and funding and why that increases their chances of success.
If we negated Answer C, "If new companies are not more likely to succeed when their founders can provide adequate funding and skills in marketing, management, and technical abilities...," then there is no longer any support for the conclusion that "companies founded by groups are more likely to succeed than companies founded by individuals."
