the workers at bell manufacturing will shortly go on strike unless the management increases their wages. as bell's presidet is well aware, however, in order to increase the workers' wages, bell would have to sell off some of its subsidiaries. so, some of bell's subsidiaries will be sold.
the conclusion above is properly draw if which one of the following is assumed? A. bell manufacturing will begin to suffer increased losses. B. bell's management will refuse to increase its workers' wages. C. the workers at bell manufacturing will not be going on strike. D. bell's president has the authority to offer the workers their desired wage increase. E. bell's workers will not accept a package of improved benefits in place of their desired wage increase.
This question is an old LSAT question and it asks for a SUFFICIENT assumption, which would lead all the way to the conclusion of the stimulus.
Premise: 1) no wage increase --> workers will strike 2) wage increase --> sell off some subsidiaries
Conclusion: Bell will sell some subsidiaries.
The contrapositive of premise 1) is: no strike --> wage increase, therefore the logic chain is no strike --> wage increase--> sell off some subsidiaries
Based on this logic chain, either "no strike" or "wage increase" would be a trigger for "sale of some subsidiaries."
Among the answer choices, C simply picks the former as the correct sufficient assumption.
Remember: sufficient condition --> necessary condition. If you understand this simply logic, there is nothing in your way to solve logical reasoning problems.
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2011-3-22 20:38:20
收藏
收藏
楼主