- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 1079
- Joined: Jun 26, 2013
- Sun Jan 20, 2002 12:00 am
#14262
Complete Question Explanation
Assumption-#%. The correct answer choice is (C)
This is a Numbers and Percentages question, and a true classic LSAT LR question. The president concludes that since the company gives out their awards to the top third of the sales force, then if the number of people getting awards has declined over fifteen years, then the number of people not getting awards has declined as well.
Answer choice (A): Answers A and E look similar to C, but there are important differences. Answer choice A is not actually about the number of people who receive the sales awards, so it seems unlikely that it is an assumption in the president's argument that the number of people passed over for awards has gone down. Instead, (A) is about hiring standards, which could easily translate into the idea that Wilson's is hiring less qualified workers. But that has no effect on the awards being given out, and this is not an assumption of the argument.
If you're ever torn between a couple answer choices on Assumption questions, you can always resort to using the Assumption Negation Technique. In this case, negating answer choice A does not disprove the president's argument. Even if hiring policies are more lax, the number of people passed over for awards could have gone down.
Answer choice (B): This answer would actually go against the president's argument. If the number of salespeople has increased over the past fifteen years but they still give awards to the top third of salespeople, then it would be the case that both the number of salespeople receiving the awards would have increased as would the number of salespeople NOT receiving the awards.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If (C) is correct and we assume that the company has used the same criterion for giving out the awards for the the past fifteen years, then the president's conclusion makes sense. If you are giving out awards to a specific proportion of your group and the number of awards given out goes down, then the total number of people in your group must have gone down as well.
Think about it this way. Let's say that 15 years ago, they had 99 salespeople working for them. If they gave awards to the top third, then 33 salespeople received awards and 66 salespeople did not. If this year we give out fewer awards than we gave out 15 years ago but we still give out awards to the top third of our sales force, our total sales force must have decreased. In other words, let's say we only gave out 20 awards this year. Twenty is one third of 60. So that would mean that this year 20 salespeople received awards and 40 did not. Therefore, the president's conclusion follows--the number of people not receiving awards has declined as well (40 vs. 66).
Now let's apply the Assumption Negation technique to answer choice (C) and see what happens. To negate (C), we would say that the criterion for handing out awards has changed over the last 15 years. If the criterion has not always been based on a proportion of the salesforce, then we can't necessarily conclude that the number of people not receiving awards has declined.
What if 15 years ago, instead of giving awards to the top third, they gave awards to everyone who sold $100,000 worth of merchandise? Let's assume again that 15 years ago there were 99 salespeople working at the department store. If 65 people sold $100,000 worth of merchandise that year, then 65 salespeople would have received awards and 34 would not have. If that were the case, then the number of people not receiving awards would actually have increased over the past fifteen years (from 34 to 40). This would directly contradict the president's conclusion.
Since the negation of answer choice (C) attacks the president's conclusion, then it is an assumption necessary for the argument. It operates as a Defender Assumption—it eliminates a possible source of attack.
Answer choice (D): This answer is about the sales figures—the amount of sales generated by each sales person. The argument is about awards based on those sales, and so this is about a different topic.
Answer choice (E): This is about the calculation of sales figures instead of the criteria for the awards. Even if we negate (E) and assume that sales figures were calculated differently, the company could still be giving awards to the top third of salespeople. The fact that the awards may go to different people if a different sales calculation is used does not affect the president's argument that the total number of people getting passed over has gone down.
Assumption-#%. The correct answer choice is (C)
This is a Numbers and Percentages question, and a true classic LSAT LR question. The president concludes that since the company gives out their awards to the top third of the sales force, then if the number of people getting awards has declined over fifteen years, then the number of people not getting awards has declined as well.
Answer choice (A): Answers A and E look similar to C, but there are important differences. Answer choice A is not actually about the number of people who receive the sales awards, so it seems unlikely that it is an assumption in the president's argument that the number of people passed over for awards has gone down. Instead, (A) is about hiring standards, which could easily translate into the idea that Wilson's is hiring less qualified workers. But that has no effect on the awards being given out, and this is not an assumption of the argument.
If you're ever torn between a couple answer choices on Assumption questions, you can always resort to using the Assumption Negation Technique. In this case, negating answer choice A does not disprove the president's argument. Even if hiring policies are more lax, the number of people passed over for awards could have gone down.
Answer choice (B): This answer would actually go against the president's argument. If the number of salespeople has increased over the past fifteen years but they still give awards to the top third of salespeople, then it would be the case that both the number of salespeople receiving the awards would have increased as would the number of salespeople NOT receiving the awards.
Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If (C) is correct and we assume that the company has used the same criterion for giving out the awards for the the past fifteen years, then the president's conclusion makes sense. If you are giving out awards to a specific proportion of your group and the number of awards given out goes down, then the total number of people in your group must have gone down as well.
Think about it this way. Let's say that 15 years ago, they had 99 salespeople working for them. If they gave awards to the top third, then 33 salespeople received awards and 66 salespeople did not. If this year we give out fewer awards than we gave out 15 years ago but we still give out awards to the top third of our sales force, our total sales force must have decreased. In other words, let's say we only gave out 20 awards this year. Twenty is one third of 60. So that would mean that this year 20 salespeople received awards and 40 did not. Therefore, the president's conclusion follows--the number of people not receiving awards has declined as well (40 vs. 66).
Now let's apply the Assumption Negation technique to answer choice (C) and see what happens. To negate (C), we would say that the criterion for handing out awards has changed over the last 15 years. If the criterion has not always been based on a proportion of the salesforce, then we can't necessarily conclude that the number of people not receiving awards has declined.
What if 15 years ago, instead of giving awards to the top third, they gave awards to everyone who sold $100,000 worth of merchandise? Let's assume again that 15 years ago there were 99 salespeople working at the department store. If 65 people sold $100,000 worth of merchandise that year, then 65 salespeople would have received awards and 34 would not have. If that were the case, then the number of people not receiving awards would actually have increased over the past fifteen years (from 34 to 40). This would directly contradict the president's conclusion.
Since the negation of answer choice (C) attacks the president's conclusion, then it is an assumption necessary for the argument. It operates as a Defender Assumption—it eliminates a possible source of attack.
Answer choice (D): This answer is about the sales figures—the amount of sales generated by each sales person. The argument is about awards based on those sales, and so this is about a different topic.
Answer choice (E): This is about the calculation of sales figures instead of the criteria for the awards. Even if we negate (E) and assume that sales figures were calculated differently, the company could still be giving awards to the top third of salespeople. The fact that the awards may go to different people if a different sales calculation is used does not affect the president's argument that the total number of people getting passed over has gone down.
