GWD15 V34 38

Q34:

In Kravonia, the average salary for jobs
requiring a college degree has always been higher than the average salary for
jobs that do not require a degree. 
Current enrollments in Kravonia’s colleges indicate that over the next
four years the percentage of the Kravonian workforce with college degrees will
increase dramatically.  Therefore, the
average salary for all workers in Kravonia is likely to increase over the next
four years.

Which of the following is an assumption on
which the argument depends?

1. Kravonians with more than one college degree earn more, on
        average, than do Kravonians with only one college degree.
2. The percentage of Kravonians who attend college in order to
        earn higher salaries is higher now than it was several years ago.
3. The higher average salary for jobs requiring a college degree
        is not due largely to a scarcity among the Kravonian workforce of people
        with a college degree.
4. The average salary in Kravonia for jobs that do not require a
        college degree will not increase over the next four years.
5. Few members of the Kravonian workforce earned their degrees in
        other countries.

Q38:

In one state, all cities and most towns
have antismoking ordinances.  A petition entitled “Petition for Statewide Smoking
Restriction” is being circulated to voters by campaign workers who ask only,
“Do you want to sign a petition for statewide smoking restriction?”  The petition advocates a state law banning
smoking in most retail establishments and in government offices that are open
to the public.

Which of the following circumstances would
make the petition as circulated misleading to voters who understand the
proposal as extending the local ordinances statewide?

1. Health costs associated with smoking cause health insurance
        premiums to rise for everyone and so affect nonsmokers.
2. In rural areas of the state, there are relatively few retail
        establishments and government offices that are open to the public.
3. The state law would supersede
        the local antismoking ordinances, which contain stronger bans than the
        state law does.
4. There is considerable sentiment
        among voters in most areas of the state for restriction of smoking.
5. The state law would not affect existing local ordinances
        banning smoking in places where the fire authorities have determined that
        smoking would constitute a fire hazard.