The argument assumes that there are no credible alternatives to unions that can better represent the interests of workers. Although the author states that workplace problems still affect millions, the paragraph emphasizes the composition and organization of unions. Thus, the focus is on the close union-member relationship rather than need. The issues of corruption, along with declining membership and labor unrest are similarly unrelated to this focus.

The argument assumes that the production of sequels and remakes, which are derived from existing sources of material, conclusively proves the absence of creativity. Thus, the author may not like moves based on toys, but this is because they are derived from an existing source of material - the toy itself. Similarly, the author may agree with the answers criticizing Hollywood, but they do not address the argument’s key assumption. Specifically, they do not link the use of existing source material to a lack of creativity.

The argument assumes that it is impossible for sports teams and taxpayers to equally benefit from the municipal funding of stadiums. In the author’s view, one side will win and the other will lose. In light of this, the correct answer clearly reflects this assumption. Issues of morality and manipulation of the system are separate from the cost-benefit analysis implied by the author’s basic assumption. The answer stating the importance of schools and city services does imply such an analysis, but does not relate to the specific issue of stadium funding. Finally, the answer mentioning the economic benefits of subsidizing stadium construction directly contradicts the author’s contention that this is a bad idea.

The argument assumes that unions have outlived their usefulness. For this to be true, there must be nothing left for them to do. Thus, the issues of union leader motivation, decreased productivity and fewer labor strikes are all irrelevant to the issue of usefulness. Finally, the answer stating that unions still have much to do in the workplace directly contradicts the author’s main assumption.

We don’t know exactly how high the crime rates in the two cities were before the increase, but if Trentdale already had a huge crime rate, increasing that rate by 10% could mean it’s still higher than Jackson City’s, if Jackson City’s were lower to start. (An example: If Trentdale’s crime rate six years ago was 90% (90 out of 100 residents affected by crime) and it went up 10%, it’d be 99%--nearly everybody affected. If Jackson City’s crime rate six years ago was 8%, and it went up 75%, it’d now be only 10%.)

This argument makes an assumption so slight that you might have missed it, that only people with nice intentions would ever give a gift to someone. Sure, Sandra's acquaintances might know she hates chocolate. And they might be angry at Sandra and want to annoy her by putting chocolates she doesn't want in her mailbox. Or maybe they're just really bad at giving gifts. The correct answer points out that there could be other reasons someone might give a gift.

Though the stem contains one of the wordier ways of asking an assumption question, the argument is straightforward: the author evaluates the sport of parkour against a standard that is not explicitly connected to the situation. The assumption is that the standard is in fact determinative.

The correct answer names the author’s assumption, that the standard he indicates that the sport fails to live up to (having a plausible scoring system) is indeed required for all sports that would be included in the Olympics. 

The first thing to do is check the answers for statements that help explain why there continues to be a large number of corner shops. One suggests that they stock different things; another that they are more conveniently located; one answer states their main business does not compete with supermarkets’; and one suggests that they are favored by the community and rely on patrons. The least relevant to the argument, and thus the answer we need, is the fact that they make home deliveries. This is irrelevant because it is not clear whether the supermarkets do the same.

This question asks about a flaw in logic: take the time to reflect upon the logic used to make the argument and expose any flaws before reading the answer choices. In this case, the reasoning is that if one product’s popularity increases, while another’s decreases, it must mean that consumers are choosing the one over the other. The assumption is that there is no other reason to explain these statistics. Any number of things could have caused these changes in patterns of consumption, thus it is irresponsible to assume that one was directly linked to the other.

The writer mentions that the proposed system can provide "accurate" information as much as "one week in advance," thus implying that the new system is more accurate and can provide information much earlier than the current system.