Loading...
In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also applied for a job at Radeco, and Evco and Radeco each offered jobs to half of these applicants. Therefore, every one of these applicants must have been offered a job in 1990.
The argument above is based on which of the following assumptions about these job applicants?
| Text from Passage | Analysis |
| In 1990 all of the people who applied for a job at Evco also applied for a job at Radeco |
|
| and Evco and Radeco each offered jobs to half of these applicants |
|
| Therefore, every one of these applicants must have been offered a job in 1990 |
|
The argument starts with two factual premises about the 1990 job application situation, then jumps to a conclusion. We get the setup (everyone applied to both companies), the hiring data (each company hired half), and then the conclusion (everyone got a job).
Every single job applicant in 1990 received at least one job offer from either Evco or Radeco.
The argument assumes that when Evco hired 50 people and Radeco hired 50 people, these were completely different groups with no overlap. This hidden assumption is what makes the math work out to 'everyone got hired.' If there was any overlap in who got offers from both companies, then some applicants would have been left out.
Assumption - We need to find what the author assumes must be true for the conclusion to logically follow from the premises
The argument makes precise quantitative claims: ALL applicants applied to both companies, EACH company offered jobs to HALF the applicants, and concludes ALL applicants got offers
To find the assumption, we need to identify what could make the conclusion false while keeping the facts true. The math seems off - if each company offers 50 jobs to the same 100 people, we could have overlap where some people get offers from both companies. For the conclusion to work, the author must assume something about how these offers were distributed
This choice focuses on the qualifications of applicants, but the argument isn't about whether people deserved jobs based on their qualifications. The argument is purely mathematical - it's about how job offers were distributed among applicants. Whether applicants were well-qualified or not doesn't affect the logical gap between the premises and conclusion.
This choice is about whether applicants accepted the jobs they were offered, but the conclusion only claims that everyone was offered a job, not that everyone accepted one. The argument doesn't need to assume anything about acceptance rates to reach its conclusion about offers being made.
This is the correct assumption. The argument concludes that all \(\mathrm{100\%}\) of applicants received job offers based on the fact that Evco offered jobs to \(\mathrm{50\%}\) and Radeco offered jobs to \(\mathrm{50\%}\). For this math to work (\(\mathrm{50\% + 50\% = 100\%}\)), there can't be any overlap between the two groups. If even one person received offers from both companies, then fewer than \(\mathrm{100\%}\) of total applicants would have received offers, making the conclusion false.
Whether applicants applied to other companies beyond Evco and Radeco is irrelevant to this argument. The conclusion is specifically about whether everyone got an offer from either Evco or Radeco in 1990. Applications to other companies don't affect this logical relationship.
Previous work history at these companies doesn't impact the logical structure of this argument. The argument is about the distribution of job offers in 1990, and whether applicants had worked there before doesn't affect whether the conclusion follows from the premises.