Source : GMATPrep
Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive. Between 1994 and 1996, the number of RDS radio stations in Verdland increased from 250 to 600. However, since the number of RDS-equipped radios in Verdland was about the same in 1996 as in 1994, the number of Verlanders receiving the special program information probably did not increase significantly.

Which of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
a. few if any of the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994 broadcast to people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.
b. In 1996 most Verdlanders who lived within the listening area of an RDS station already had a radio equipped to receive RDS.
c. Equipping a radio station with RDS technology does not decrease the station’s listening area.
d. In 1996 Verlanders who did not own radios equipped to receive RDS could not receive any programming from the RDS radio stations that began broadcasting in Verdland after 1994.
e. The RDS radio stations in Verdland in 1996 did not all offer the same type of programming.

Though I got the answer by POE, I was not sure how to apply negation technique to A, especially because of "few if any" phrase.

Thanks
Pathik

here's a diagram for this argument:

(# of rds-equipped stations increased 250-->600)
BUT
(apprx same # of rds radios in Vland)
THEREFORE
(apprx same # of people receiving rds signals in Vland)

if you make this diagram, it should be clear that there's a logical leap between the latter two statements: the author is assuming a direct correlation between the # of rds-equipped radios and the # of people who actually receive rds signals with those radios.
in order to make this connection, you need to assume that nobody, or almost nobody**, with an rds-equipped radio is now (in '96, that is) able to receive a signal but wasn't able to receive a signal back in '94. that's pretty much what (a) says.

**the reason 'almost nobody' is ok is because the passage hedges its bets by speaking in approximations: 'about the same', 'did not increase significantly'. this is the source of the 'few if any' at the beginning of choice (a).
had the passage spoken in more absolute terms - 'the same', 'did not increase' (i.e., at all), then you'd have to replace 'few if any' with 'none'.

The answer choice for "A" is so confusing! Can we expect a lot of language like this? This was my first question on the Prep test and I got it wrong

It's almost like learning a new language. And to continue that analogy, immersion is one key to achieving fluency. Keep up your practice with the OG problems and you'll be less and less encumbered by the language. Moreover, you'll be able to notice patterns across problems and increase your accuracy. Keep on truckin'!

what wrong with D)
I can not rule out D. => IF people, who dont have RDS tool, can not get to the cast program, the number of the radio with RDS tool will represent the number of people, who listen the cast program.

D is not an assumption - it is a fact. We are told that you cannot get this type of signal without the right equipment. An assumption must be something that is unstated.

Thanks you Jonathan

So, the rule is that we can not use the fact, stated in the premise, as the assumption

yes.

ASSUMPTIONS must be statements IN ADDITION to the premises given in the passage. they can't merely be repeats of the information that's already there.

you won't often see this happen, by the way, but, if you get a statement that appears to regurgitate one of the premises, then you should strike it out.

pls put some thought about C

C is out of scope. It says that equipping a radio with the RDS feature does not decrease the range of the radio. But who cares? Even if it did, this would have been the case for 1994 as well as 1996. We need something that connects the data about radios and 94-96 with the claim that THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE received the programming, even though no one bought new radios.

Basically:
# stations broadcasting went up
# radios the same
C: same audience

Assumption? That there weren't people who had radios already but were just lacking a nearby station.

if A is the assumption, then without it argument should fall...rite..?
it is given in above paragraph that one needs to have RDS-equipped radio to recieve special program infomration. Since the number of such radios is same, so the peope who would recieve special program infomration should remain same even if these RDS stations are broadcasted outside the area not covered before 1994.

Eg - let's assume that before 1994 - area A of verland recieves broadcast from RDS radio stations ,and only 100 people possess RDS-equipped radio. So only these 100 people would recieve broadcast of special program information.

let us assume that From 1994 to 1996 people in area B of verland start recieving coverage from RDS radio stations.

Case -1
since the number of RDS-equipped radio is the same in 1996 as in 1994 , people in this area B would be without RDS-Equipped radio and hence will not recieve the broadcast of special program infomration. to recieve the broadcast, they will have to buy RDS-equipped radio . So, total number of people recieving special program information ---100 people in area A of verland and 0 in area B of verland.

Case -2

Assume 20 people in area B borrows RDS-equipped radio from people in Area A. Now 20 people in area B and 80 people in Area A would recieve broadcast. Total number of people recieving the broadcast would still remain the same


So without assumption in option - A argument is intact . I guess I am missing something as this is offcial answer and has to be correct.
Instructors please advise?

Eg - let's assume that before 1994 - area A of verland recieves broadcast from RDS radio stations ,and only 100 people possess RDS-equipped radio. So only these 100 people would recieve broadcast of special program information.

You are assuming that all the 100 people with RDS-equipped radio were able to recieve special program information.

yes..
question stem:
Radio stations with radio data system (RDS) technology broadcast special program information that only radios with an RDS feature can receive.

this is the problem.

you're assuming that no one in area "b" had an rds-equipped radio prior to 1996.

not only is that a baseless assumption, but it's actually contradicted by the answer choice, which says:
people with RDS-equipped radios living in areas not previously reached by RDS stations.

so you can't assume that there are 0 people in area "b" with the radios.

in fact, this is the way you should do it:
1994:
100 people in area "a" with equipped radios - CAN get signal
100 people in area "b" with equipped radios - CANNOT get signal
total 100 can get signal

1996:
100 people in area "a" with equipped radios - CAN get signal
100 people in area "b" with equipped radios - CAN NOW ALSO get signal
total 200 can get signal

bye bye argument. so (a) is the correct answer.

I generally found that the correct answer is usually twisted in CR.

Here they made confusing by inserting "few if any".

Thanks to GMAC for doing so