Self-study
Private industry is trying to attract skilled research scientists by offering them high salaries. ██ █ ███████ ████ ████████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ███ ████ ██ ███████ ████ ████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ████████ ██████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ███ ██████ ███████████████████ ████████ ██████████ ███ █████████ ████ ██ █ █████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ████ ███████ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███████ █████████ █████ ████ ██ █████ ██████████ █████ ████ ████████ ███████ ██████████████ █████
Summary: Kick it Up
The author comes to a conditional conclusion: if skilled researchers working for the government care more about their own interests than about public duty, then the government will likely lose those researchers to the private sector. Because we're dealing with a conditional conclusion, we can kick the sufficient condition up into the premises to make the underlying structure clearer. Basically, for the purpose of analysis we'll assume the sufficient condition is met so we can figure out what else is going on with the argument.
In the kicked-up version, we're left with the more straightforward conclusion that government will likely lose its skilled researchers to the private sector. Why? Because private-sector jobs pay much more, and it would be easy for these researchers to find private-sector jobs. Plus, we have our kicked-up premise: these researchers care more about their own interests than about public duty.
Objective: Find a Necessary Assumption
To figure out where a necessary assumption fits in, we can try to identify a gap in the argument where the author's premises do not lead to the conclusion. Here, we already know that the researchers are self-interested and that private-sector jobs generally pay more. So why might it not be the case that they would jump ship and leave the government?
One possibility is if private-sector jobs aren't actually in the researchers' interests overall. Sure, those jobs pay more, but that's not the only thing that matters—what about benefits, or vacation time? The author is implicitly equating salary and "interests," and for that to work, it's necessary to assume that no other overriding factors are in play. Otherwise, self-interest could actually lead the researchers to stay in government.
Even though we've identified a necessary assumption, keep in mind that the correct answer may not look how we expect. If we can find our predicted answer, great, but we should still keep an eye out for other possibilities.
16.
Which one of the following ██ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ████████
a
Government research scientists ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███████ ██████████████ ███ █████ ████████ █████████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████
(A) gives us another benefit of the private sector, that researchers will get more acknowledgement. This strengthens the argument by emphasizing that researchers' self-interest lies with the private sector, but it's still not necessary. The argument would be fine even without this assumption; the extra benefit isn't needed.
b
None of the ████████ ██████████ █████████ ████████ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ████ ████ ███ ████████████ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████
We already know for a fact that most private research scientists earn more than their government counterparts. One or two exceptions to this would not undermine the conclusion, so we don't need an assumption to protect the argument. The argument is about what's likely, and that doesn't require an absolute assumption like this.
We can test this using negation: if one government researcher did earn more than any private-sector researcher, so what? As far as we know, it could still be in the interest of all the other government researchers to find private-sector jobs. So the conclusion still holds, meaning (B) is not necessary to assume.
c
The government does ███ ██████ ██ ████ ████████ ██████████ ███ ███ ██████ ███████ ██ ████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████ ██████ █████ ███████ ████████ ███████████
Regardless of which sector employs a greater number of skilled researchers, that doesn't affect the argument, meaning (C) isn't necessary to assume. We already know that the private sector offers higher pay and that it's easy to find jobs there, so comparative employment numbers aren't needed.
d
The government does ███ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████████ ████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████ ████ ████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ████████
This must be true in order for the conclusion to follow, because it allows the author to equate salary with the researchers' self-interest. If (D) weren’t true—if the government offered great benefits that made up for low pay—then researchers' self-interest would lead them to stay with the government, not to switch jobs. So (D) is necessary for the conclusion to hold up.
e
Research scientists employed ██ ███ ███████ ██████ █████████ ████ ██████ █████ ████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████
(E) is pointed in the opposite directon from the assumption we need: if (E) is true, that actually weakens the argument by offering a comparative benefit of government work. We need an assumption to tell us that government work does not have great non-monetary benefits; (E) tries to do the opposite, so can't be necessary.