CR from Manhattan book

[rico16rad]

Editorial : The intercontinental bank should reallocate the voting shares of its members in order to more effectively shape global economic policy.For example,CHina comprises about 15 percent of the world's gross domestic product but has only a 3 % voting share ,whereas Belguim,with less than 1 % of the global economy,has a 2 % share.

Which of the following is an assumption upon which the editorial's authors depend in suggesting a way to more effectively shape global economic policy?
1. The US has a larger voting share of the intercontinental bank than does china and beligum.
2.The specific allocation of voting shares factors into the intercontinental bank's effectiveness in shaping global eco. policy.
3.Only voting shares that are precisely proportional to each country's contribution to the global economy are apporpiate for the intercontinental bank.
4.The intercontinental bank is necessary to the maintenance of a prosperous global economy.
5.As one of the fastest growing economies,China should have a larger voting share in the intercontinental bank

Experts Comments
Please let me know what is the conclusion of this argument and how answer 2 bridge the gap between premise and conclusion

[ranjeet1975]

The Conclusion of the argument is as below:

The intercontinental bank should reallocate the voting shares of its members in order to more effectively shape global economic policy.

And the contenders for the answer are 2 & 3.

The use of only in 3 is unwarranted so the answer should be 2.

[tim]

The conclusion is embedded in the first sentence, which makes a recommendation in order to achieve the ultimate goal of effectiveness in policy. The ultimate goal is the conclusion of an argument.

Despite what it says in the book, I would actually categorize this as a logic gap problem. You can recognize a logic gap when the premises are talking about one thing and the conclusion talks about something completely different. Once you recognize this, you should look for an answer that bridges the gap - specifically, something that ties the information in the premises to that in the conclusion.

In this case the premises talk about a voting disparity and the conclusion talks about being effective in shaping policy. You're looking for the answer that ties the voting disparity to effectiveness in shaping policy, and only B does this.