PT144 · S4 · Q16 Economist: If the economy grows stronger

Too Strong/Specific: most Relative vs. Absolute: pay better vs. well "Most" is wrong 99% of the time we see it in Necessary Assumption because you rarely need to believe something is true in at least 51% of cases, as opposed to merely 49% of cases. If we negated this answer and said, "In a stronger economy, only 49% of the new jobs would be in fields that pay well", would that hurt the author's argument at all? No. The author only needs to assume that some of the new jobs will be better-paying than what day care jobs currently pay.

The author is assuming that "if the economy is stronger, the overall number of people employed as day-care workers is likely to decrease". But this answer is talking about the number of workers employed by day-care centers. Day-care workers aren't only employed by day-care centers. A lot of nannies are employed by one family, where they go every day. They are still considered day-care workers, even though they don't work at a day-care center. The author might be assuming that those types of day-care workers are the ones who are likely to quit and seek better-paying jobs. If we thought that in a stronger economy, a bunch of fitness trainers or yoga instructors would quit and take a better-paying job in another field, this answer would be saying "in a stronger economy, the number of trainers/instructors who work at gyms is likely to decrease". Also, this answer is talking to broadly about workers at day-care centers, not day-care workers specifically. A day-care center has workers like janitors, administrators, security, etc. that are not day-care workers, and the author hasn't committed to any beliefs about those kinds of jobs.

This has a conditional work (unless), so your policy with conditional Necessary Assumption answers is to ask ourselves whether the author actually made this move. This answer says shortage of day ? employment increases care likely to and many day-care emp's worsen quit for more $ elsewhere The actual argument flowed in reverse direction. It was establishing the ideas of increased employment and day-care workers quitting, and then it was concluding that a shortage of day-care is likely to worsen.

Out of Scope: total number Out of Scope: cost rises significantly The author never discusses the cost of day-care rising, just that it would be harder to find day care. It's possible that harder to find day care is also significantly more expensive daycare, but it's not necessary. And the author hasn't said anything that commits him to believing a higher/lower/comparable total number of young children in day-care centers. Again, day-care centers are just a subset of day-care. A live-in nanny or a babysitter that comes over 3 days a week still counts as day-care.