- PowerScore Staff
- Posts: 8917
- Joined: Feb 02, 2011
- Sat Jan 21, 2012 12:00 am
#36617
Complete Question Explanation
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (E)
This is a Defender Assumption question, where the correct answer choice will protect or defend the
conclusion from potentially harmful information. First, analyze the logical structure of the stimulus:
Premise: People want to live in areas of natural beauty.
Premise: As people move into those areas, businesses will be encouraged to relocate to those areas,
presumably boosting local economies.
Conclusion: Governmental protection of the local environment (preserving the region’s beauty) can help
the economy, even if there is some harm to older local industries.
For the conclusion to be possible, the harm to older local industries cannot discourage or adversely affect
other businesses interested in relocating to that region, as there would likely be no overall economic
benefit. This assumption is best expressed by answer choice (E).
Answer choice (A): Most test takers will be able to dismiss this answer choice quickly. The conditional
structure of this sentence can be expressed as follows:
NB = regions of natural beauty which are beautiful enough to attract new residents
EP = environmental protection that damages local industries
EP 
NB
This means that if environmental protection that damages local industries is imposed in regions of
natural beauty, those regions will no longer be beautiful enough to attract new residents. If this is the
true, the harm to local industries would be compounded by the lack of new residents and the regions’
overall economy would be doubly harmed. This is a Weaken answer choice.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice is considerably more appealing than answer choice (A) and is
focused on a critical aspect of the stimulus: harm to local industries. In fact, this was the most popular
answer choice among test takers attempting this exam. However, as was discussed in the evaluation of
the stimulus, the determining factor in this argument is the relationship between the economic harm
done to older industries vs. the economic benefit of relocating businesses when governmental protection
occurs. As long as the benefit is greater than the harm, the argument remains valid (a region’s overall
economy would benefit). This answer choice states that local economies are not based primarily on local
industries that would be harmed by mandated environmental protection. Is this statement necessary
for the conclusion to remain plausible? To determine the necessity of answer choice (B), negate it and
evaluate the effects according to the Assumption Negation Technique: the economies of most regions of
natural beauty are based primarily on local industries that would be harmed. Does this undermine the
conclusion that overall the economy can benefit? Possibly, but not necessarily. Even if local industries
are the primary economic source in a region, and these local industries are harmed, it is still entirely
possible that the benefit of the new businesses that move to that region would outweigh the harm done to
the local industries. If that were the case, the overall economy would still be helped and the conclusion
would remain unharmed. Since negating answer choice (B) does not invalidate the conclusion, answer
choice (B) is not an assumption of the argument.
Answer choice (C): The conclusion of this argument is that government protections can help the
economy overall. Does the argument depend on encouraging people to move in to an area as the primary
economic benefit of these protections? No. There could be several other ways in which protection
benefits the local economy and determining which of the effects of protection is of primary benefit to the
economy does not affect the conclusion’s validity.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice presents an alternative method for helping a region’s economy
and concludes that this method is not as effective as the method given in the stimulus. Proving that
governmentally mandated environmental protections are more effective than other options would be
important if the argument implied that these protections were the best way to help a region’s economy.
However, since the conclusion makes no such claim, this comparison is unnecessary and this answer
choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Answer choice (E) can be dentified as a
contender because it focuses on the important relationship between older local industries and relocating
businesses. As with any Assumption question, and as was seen with answer choice (B), the correct
answer choice can be confirmed with the Assumption Negation Technique. If this is the correct answer
choice, then negating it will render the conclusion invalid. The logical negation of this answer choice
is, “A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region will discourage other businesses from
relocating to that region.” If governmentally mandated environmental protection were a factor that both
harmed some older local industries and discouraged other businesses from relocating to that region,
then local economies would not have an overall benefit and the conclusion could not be true. Because
negating answer choice (E) invalidates the conclusion, answer choice (E) is an assumption necessary for
the argument.
Assumption. The correct answer choice is (E)
This is a Defender Assumption question, where the correct answer choice will protect or defend the
conclusion from potentially harmful information. First, analyze the logical structure of the stimulus:
Premise: People want to live in areas of natural beauty.
Premise: As people move into those areas, businesses will be encouraged to relocate to those areas,
presumably boosting local economies.
Conclusion: Governmental protection of the local environment (preserving the region’s beauty) can help
the economy, even if there is some harm to older local industries.
For the conclusion to be possible, the harm to older local industries cannot discourage or adversely affect
other businesses interested in relocating to that region, as there would likely be no overall economic
benefit. This assumption is best expressed by answer choice (E).
Answer choice (A): Most test takers will be able to dismiss this answer choice quickly. The conditional
structure of this sentence can be expressed as follows:
NB = regions of natural beauty which are beautiful enough to attract new residents
EP = environmental protection that damages local industries
EP NBThis means that if environmental protection that damages local industries is imposed in regions of
natural beauty, those regions will no longer be beautiful enough to attract new residents. If this is the
true, the harm to local industries would be compounded by the lack of new residents and the regions’
overall economy would be doubly harmed. This is a Weaken answer choice.
Answer choice (B): This answer choice is considerably more appealing than answer choice (A) and is
focused on a critical aspect of the stimulus: harm to local industries. In fact, this was the most popular
answer choice among test takers attempting this exam. However, as was discussed in the evaluation of
the stimulus, the determining factor in this argument is the relationship between the economic harm
done to older industries vs. the economic benefit of relocating businesses when governmental protection
occurs. As long as the benefit is greater than the harm, the argument remains valid (a region’s overall
economy would benefit). This answer choice states that local economies are not based primarily on local
industries that would be harmed by mandated environmental protection. Is this statement necessary
for the conclusion to remain plausible? To determine the necessity of answer choice (B), negate it and
evaluate the effects according to the Assumption Negation Technique: the economies of most regions of
natural beauty are based primarily on local industries that would be harmed. Does this undermine the
conclusion that overall the economy can benefit? Possibly, but not necessarily. Even if local industries
are the primary economic source in a region, and these local industries are harmed, it is still entirely
possible that the benefit of the new businesses that move to that region would outweigh the harm done to
the local industries. If that were the case, the overall economy would still be helped and the conclusion
would remain unharmed. Since negating answer choice (B) does not invalidate the conclusion, answer
choice (B) is not an assumption of the argument.
Answer choice (C): The conclusion of this argument is that government protections can help the
economy overall. Does the argument depend on encouraging people to move in to an area as the primary
economic benefit of these protections? No. There could be several other ways in which protection
benefits the local economy and determining which of the effects of protection is of primary benefit to the
economy does not affect the conclusion’s validity.
Answer choice (D): This answer choice presents an alternative method for helping a region’s economy
and concludes that this method is not as effective as the method given in the stimulus. Proving that
governmentally mandated environmental protections are more effective than other options would be
important if the argument implied that these protections were the best way to help a region’s economy.
However, since the conclusion makes no such claim, this comparison is unnecessary and this answer
choice is incorrect.
Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. Answer choice (E) can be dentified as a
contender because it focuses on the important relationship between older local industries and relocating
businesses. As with any Assumption question, and as was seen with answer choice (B), the correct
answer choice can be confirmed with the Assumption Negation Technique. If this is the correct answer
choice, then negating it will render the conclusion invalid. The logical negation of this answer choice
is, “A factor harmful to some older local industries in a region will discourage other businesses from
relocating to that region.” If governmentally mandated environmental protection were a factor that both
harmed some older local industries and discouraged other businesses from relocating to that region,
then local economies would not have an overall benefit and the conclusion could not be true. Because
negating answer choice (E) invalidates the conclusion, answer choice (E) is an assumption necessary for
the argument.