Q1 - Editorial: The city has chosen a contractor

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
Only 40% of the selected contractor's employees are certified, so 60% are unqualified.

Answer Anticipation:
The math adds up. However, there is a term shift between the premise (certified) and conclusion (unqualified). This argument is treating someone who isn't certified as being unqualified, so the correct answer will connect those ideas.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. Pay?

(B) Out of scope. This argument only cares about the selected contractors, not others.

(C) Bingo. This answer choice connects the 60% of the technician's who are uncertified with being unqualified. This answer is also sufficient.

(D) Opposite, if anything. This answer choice would undermine the editorialist's outrage by limiting the work to only the certified technicians (the ones the editorialist feels are qualified).

(E) Too specific/out of scope. While having ties to the officials is one potential explanation for how the contractor received the job, it's not the only one, and so it's not required for this argument. Additionally, the argument is about qualifications, not nepotism.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Be on the lookout for new terms in the conclusion of Assumption questions - they're a great place to start on your quest to find the gap in the argument.

#officialexplanation