Discussion
The argument’s conclusion follows logically if which
one of the following is assumed?
*This question is included in Sample Lesson Set 2: Moderate Questions, question #1
| (A) | Anyone with a master’s degree and without a felony conviction is eligible for appointment to the executive board. |
| (B) | ... |
| (C) | ... |
| (D) | ... |
| (E) | ... |
| (F) | ... |
The solution is
Posted: 01/14/2012 12:42
Can someone please explain this question in simpler terms?
Posted: 01/15/2012 19:59
Hi, Margarita -
An "argument", such as the one in the example, usually consists of one or more statements (sometimes called "premises") that are supposed to be accepted as factual, and an additional statement (called the "conclusion") that is supposed to follow from them. In simple terms, the conclusion is what the writer is trying to convince you of, and the premises are the evidence he is using to do so.
In this question, the premises can be summarized as:
- Only someone with an undergraduate degree and no felony convictions can be on the Executive Board.
- Murray has an undergraduate and graduate degree, but he also has a felony conviction.
The conclusion is:
--> Murray cannot be the Executive Administrator.
Now, this particular question asks you to find the additional assumption needed to draw this conclusion. In other words, there's a loophole in the argument as it stands; your job is to find it and close it.
(Hint: The conclusion doesn't actually mention the Executive Board.)
An "argument", such as the one in the example, usually consists of one or more statements (sometimes called "premises") that are supposed to be accepted as factual, and an additional statement (called the "conclusion") that is supposed to follow from them. In simple terms, the conclusion is what the writer is trying to convince you of, and the premises are the evidence he is using to do so.
In this question, the premises can be summarized as:
- Only someone with an undergraduate degree and no felony convictions can be on the Executive Board.
- Murray has an undergraduate and graduate degree, but he also has a felony conviction.
The conclusion is:
--> Murray cannot be the Executive Administrator.
Now, this particular question asks you to find the additional assumption needed to draw this conclusion. In other words, there's a loophole in the argument as it stands; your job is to find it and close it.
(Hint: The conclusion doesn't actually mention the Executive Board.)
Posted: 06/26/2013 21:18
I disagree with this question "credited response". Although B makes sense it isn't necessarily true. Just because one is on the executive board doesn't make it fact that they would become executive administrator. However if someone has a masters degree they also must have a bachelors degree, and one with both of those qualifications and no felony conviction would in fact be eligible for that position on the executive board.
Posted: 07/02/2013 14:26
Hi, Andrew -
I think you've misunderstood the question slightly. The answer 'B' is correct not because it is necessarily true -- obviously it does not follow from the given argument in any way -- but because the argument itself is invalid UNLESS it is true.
The argument clearly implies that Murray is not eligible for appointment to the executive board: no one with a felony conviction is eligible for appointment to the board, and Murray has a felony conviction. HOWEVER, the argument then concludes that Murray cannot be accepted to the position of Executive Administrator. If the Executive Administrator must be eligible for appointment to the executive board (i.e., if 'B' is true), then this conclusion follows. Otherwise it does not. (To see this more clearly, try substituting "file clerk" for "Executive Administrator" in both the argument and the answer 'B'.)
In short, 'B' is the correct answer because the argument depends on it as an assumption, not because it is a priori true.
I think you've misunderstood the question slightly. The answer 'B' is correct not because it is necessarily true -- obviously it does not follow from the given argument in any way -- but because the argument itself is invalid UNLESS it is true.
The argument clearly implies that Murray is not eligible for appointment to the executive board: no one with a felony conviction is eligible for appointment to the board, and Murray has a felony conviction. HOWEVER, the argument then concludes that Murray cannot be accepted to the position of Executive Administrator. If the Executive Administrator must be eligible for appointment to the executive board (i.e., if 'B' is true), then this conclusion follows. Otherwise it does not. (To see this more clearly, try substituting "file clerk" for "Executive Administrator" in both the argument and the answer 'B'.)
In short, 'B' is the correct answer because the argument depends on it as an assumption, not because it is a priori true.