Okay, we start with the question stem, where we see a couple of keywords. The arguments conclusion follows logically if. Which of the following is assumed. So they're not saying that we need to assume it just that if we assume that the conclusion will follow, which means that the conclusion will definitely be proven true. Read full transcript
So, thus, the question that, we're dealing with is a sufficient assumption question. As a sufficient assumption question, our main task is to find the conclusion. Find the evidence and notice the gap between conclusion and evidence. Honest sufficient assumption question. The correct answer will bridge the gap between those two things, proving the conclusion absolutely true.
Essentially, when we take the right answer and add it to the evidence that we already have. The conclusion will be 100% true proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. So we have a nice conclusory keyword indicating the conclusion to us, a thus. Thus, Murray, who's an accountant with a bachelor's and master's, can't be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator.
Now, we have a couple of evidence keywords. Pointing our way. So first off further and secondly sense. So there's a couple of pieces of evidence here. The pretty much all the rest of it. First sentence, an undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to something called the executive board.
And also another requirement for the executive board, no one with a felony can be appointed to the board. So Murray, an accountant with both a bachelor's and a master's, so he needs the first requirement, he has his undergrad. He can't be on the board because he has a felony conviction. So, our conclusion Murray can't be the Executive Administrator or evidence.
First to be on the executive board, you have to have an undergraduate degree which can't have a felony. Murray has an undergraduate degree, and he also has a felony. So the evidence on its own, definitely proves that Murray can't be on the executive board. He doesn't meet the requirements.
But it doesn't prove that he can't be the Executive Administrator because, we know nothing about the relationship between the Executive Administrator and the Executive Board. I don't know what's going on with that. So, we're looking for an answer choice that's gonna clear that up and make it so that we can be absolutely certain Murray is not gonna be the Executive Administrator.
So, answer choice A. Anyone with a masters degree and without a felony conviction is eligible for appointment to the board. That's problematic for two reasons. First, okay, he has a masters degree, but he isn't without a felony conviction. So this rule that the answer choice gives us is not gonna help keep him off the board.
Worse this is a rule about what makes you eligible to the board so we're trying to make him ineligible. Answer choice A is not our answer. Answer choice B. Only candidates eligible for appointment to the executive board can be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator.
So this is good because if only people who are eligible to be on the board can be the executive administrator. He can't be on the board. Murray can't be the executive administrator. So that's our answer. Now we can glance at the other answer choices just to make sure.
So, answer choice C says that an undergrad degree is not necessary to be the Executive Administrator. Well, first off, he has an undergraduate degree and this is eliminating it from the Executive Administrator requirements. This answer choices making it easier to be the Executive Administrator and we're trying to keep Murray from being it.
That's not going to help. Answer choice D. If Murray did not have a felony conviction. Well, he has one. So it doesn't matter what would be true if he didn't. This rule won't apply to him he does.
Also, it would bring him closer to being the Executive Administrator. We want to take him further away. D is not our answer. Answer choice E. So this one is close to what we want. It's not what we want.
It's almost there. The problem with it is answer choice. He says the felony charge is relevant to the duties of the Executive Administrator. Well, if his felony is relevant, that would be a reason that we might worry about putting him on the board. Maybe whatever he did would affect his ability to carry out his duties.
The problem is that maybe being relevant doesn't prove things one way or the other. Since it doesn't keep Murray off the board 100%. It just makes him less likely to be on the board. That's not our answer. So, B is the answer. On to the next question.