Assumptions

The author mentions the percentage of voters belonging to the Thullu community since s/he believes that votes from the women by themselves would not be sufficient to secure the specified number of votes. 

To solve this question, we need to assume that the last line refers to 2/3rd of the total number of votes.

For the overlap between the two sets (i.e. women and the Thullu community) to be minimal, a majority of the Thullu comunity must be men. 

This is the only way in which securing the votes of women and the Thullu community would ensure that a party will secure 2/3rd i.e.67% of the votes.

Therefore, the answer is A. Negating it would make the conclusion false under all circumstances.

All the other options can be eliminated with ease. B restates a part of the argument. C and D contain foreign variables ('no other community' and 'residents').

Hi Samyak, the premise is about accepting the claim that climate change is to blame for an increase in global hunger. The conclusion is that there is a consequent risk of embracing the costliest and least effective solution to global hunger. 

The premise is that the Earth’s resources are depleting much too fast.

The conclusion here is in the form of a suggestion or plan of action- the US must keep its resource consumption at present levels for many years to come so as to correct the problem.

Possible Assumptions:

1. US’s stake in the consumption of the Earth’s resources is at such a level that any increase in it would deplete Earth’s resources too fast.
2. If only the US’s resource consumption is checked, the Earth’s resource depletion will be stemmed.
3. The US’s resource consumption level does not depend on the Earth’s resource consumption level.
4. The US and the Earth share the same pool of resources.

Ans 13.

Option A- This can fit between the premise and conclusion, however, when it’s negated, the conclusion does not fail. Even if resource consumption levels in the US are not at an all-time high, their growth rate can still be such that, if checked, will still stem the Earth’s resource depletion rate.

Option B contains a foreign variable (wastage of resources).

Option C is not necessary for the conclusion to be true. Let’s say that the United States uses more resources than any other country. There can still be another entity, which is not a country (maybe a multinational company), that uses more resources than the US. In that case, simply checking the US’s resource consumption will not correct the problem of the Earth’s resources being depleted too fast.

Option D contains a foreign variable- import of resources.

Option E is closely linked to the first possible assumption mentioned above. It fits between the premise and conclusion. If one negates it to say the curbing US resource consumption will not significantly retard world resource depletion, the conclusion will fail. It would not be valid to then suggest as a solution that the US must keep its resource consumption at present levels for many years to come (for the problem of the Earth’s resources being depleted “much too fast.”) Apart from the fact that E. uses ‘world’ and not ‘Earth’, it is an accurate assumption. 🙂

Ans 14.

Option A does not support the premise’s validity that the Earth’s resources are being consumed much too fast.

C. does not support the conclusion, which seeks to solve the problem of the world’s resources being consumed much too fast.

Option D. can be seen as evidence to attack the conclusion. Since other countries have agreed to hold their resource consumption at present levels, this may negate the need for the US to check its consumption.

E. also provides evidence to attack the conclusion that the US needs to check its resource consumption level.

Option B provides evidence to support the conclusion. Hence, it’s the answer for a strengthening statement.

Hi Sir, your explanation fits accurately. But I still have one doubt. 

The assumption according to you is that US’s stake in the consumption of the Earth’s resources is at such a level that any increase in it would deplete Earth’s resources too fast.

But if that is so, why would the author suggest to keep consuming the resources at the present level instead of suggesting US to limit their consumption? 

Good point, Richa. My assumption would be precise if worded as: the US’s stake in the consumption of the Earth’s resources is at such a level that any increase in its growth rate would deplete Earth’s resources much too fast. This way the author's conclusion can be kept intact- if the US's resource consumption is kept at present levels for many years to come, the earth's resources will not deplete much too fast.

The premise of the given argument is that the falling value of the dollar will make it cheaper for paper manufacturers in Japan and Western Europe (WE) to buy American wood pulp than to get it from any other source.

The conclusion is that this will lead to a considerable rise in the exports of United States wood pulp during this year.

Possible Assumptions-

1. The rising exports of US wood pulp will not be attributable to any factor apart from the exchange rate.

2. The rising exports of US wood pulp cannot be the cause of the falling value of the dollar.

3. Japan and WE would import considerable amounts of wood pulp from non-US sources earlier.

4. Japan and WE’s demand for wood pulp that was met by non-US sources earlier will be there this year too.

5. The benefit derived by paper manufacturers in Japan and WE, from the decreased price of US wood pulp, will be greater than any cost attached to buying the US wood pulp.

6. Production of wood pulp can be increased considerably during this year in the US so as to meet the demand from Japan and WE.

Surbhi, Option B is a rewording of the possible assumption 5 mentioned above. If its quality was inadequate, the costs (with likely financial consequences) of buying US wood pulp would be greater than the benefits derived from buying it because it's cheaper. The premise is all about how it would be most beneficial for Japan and WE’s paper manufacturers to buy US wood pulp due to the reduced financial cost.

Option C is a hypothetical statement. It is about a situation in which cost is not a factor, thereby contradicting the premise that already states that cost is factor. Moreover, it is no way connected to the conclusion of US wood pulp exports rising considerably this year.