PrepTest 73, Logical Reasoning 1, Question 12
Transcript
Question 12, when a question ask you for something that if assumed, would allow the conclusion to be properly inferred, you're dealing with a sufficient assumption question. And on a sufficient assumption question, your job is to find a new piece of evidence. That when added to the evidence you already have, will guarantee the truth the conclusion 100%, no doubts.
In order to do that, of course you have to know what the conclusion is and what evidence you already have to work with. So here the conclusion is the first sentence. The chairperson should not have released the Election Commission's report to the public. The evidence follows, for, which is an evidence keyword.
For the chairperson did not consult any other members of the commission about releasing the report before having it released. A lot of sufficient assumption questions are gonna be easiest, if you write the rules and the conclusion in formal logic shorthand, and this question is no different. If we take the first part, what we're trying to prove, the chairman shouldn't have released the report.
That's the conclusion we're trying to reach. But the evidence won't get us there. The evidence says, that the chairperson didn't consult, if we rearrange that we can see the gap. We know that the chairperson didn't consult, we're trying to prove that they shouldn't have released that gap between those two things.
If we were to find out that if you don't consult, then you shouldn't release things. That would allow us to build a bridge, from the evidence, straight on to the conclusion. The chairman didn't consult people and if you don't consult people, then you shouldn't release the report.
That would prove that the chairman shouldn't have released the report. So that's what we're gonna be looking for in the answer choices. So I go to answer choice A, It would have been permissible for the chairperson to release the commission's report to the public only if most other members of the commission had first given their consent. This is our answer, although it does bring up a new term, consent.
And that's why a lot of people don't like this answer, or don't pick it on the first pass. But we can see how it works. Remember that what we're trying to prove here is that the chairman shouldn't have released the report. And we were looking for if you don't consult people, then you shouldn't release it.
And this says, it would be permissible, only if he had gotten their consent. So if you don't have consent, you shouldn't release the information. If we take that and put it up with what we already have. We know the chairman didn't consult anyone, this says if you didn't get consent, then you shouldn't have released the forms. Well, if you didn't consult people, it would have been impossible for you to get their consent on anything.
So, the chairman didn't consult anyone. If you don't consult anyone, you can't get their consent. And if you don't get their consent, you're not allowed to release the document. That does allow us to get from the chairman, to not releasing what we were trying to do. So that is our answer choice.
So what's wrong with the other answers? Answer choice B. All of the members of the Commission has signed the report. It's hard to know what signing the report has to do with anything. Does that overrule the requirement to consult people? We don't know.
If anything, it feels like this would hurt the argument because maybe if they signed it, then it was okay to go out. But who knows, it doesn't prove the conclusion regardless. Answer choice C, the chairperson would not have been justified in releasing the commission's report, if any member of the commission had serious reservations. And that's the thing, is we don't know if they had any reservations.
We just know they weren't consulted. We've got know information about their reservations. So this can't help us prove that the chairperson is on the wrong. Answer choice D. The chairperson would have been justified, only if each of the commission's members would have agreed to it's being released, had they been consulted.
No we don't know what would have happened if they'd been consulted. All we know is that they weren't. So whether they would have agreed or wouldn't have agreed, we don't know. So we can't use this to prove the chairperson was in the wrong and then finally answer choice E. Some members of the commission would have preferred the report not be released.
Helps a little bit. I guess if they had preferred it not be released, then he's isn't a little bit in the wrong. But we're not trying to prove the chairperson is a little bit in the wrong. We're trying to prove 100% without any doubts that they shouldn't have released the Election Commission Report.
This just says some people were unhappy. It doesn't prove that the chairperson was in the wrong. So it's not our answer. Answer choice A was our answer.
Read full transcriptIn order to do that, of course you have to know what the conclusion is and what evidence you already have to work with. So here the conclusion is the first sentence. The chairperson should not have released the Election Commission's report to the public. The evidence follows, for, which is an evidence keyword.
For the chairperson did not consult any other members of the commission about releasing the report before having it released. A lot of sufficient assumption questions are gonna be easiest, if you write the rules and the conclusion in formal logic shorthand, and this question is no different. If we take the first part, what we're trying to prove, the chairman shouldn't have released the report.
That's the conclusion we're trying to reach. But the evidence won't get us there. The evidence says, that the chairperson didn't consult, if we rearrange that we can see the gap. We know that the chairperson didn't consult, we're trying to prove that they shouldn't have released that gap between those two things.
If we were to find out that if you don't consult, then you shouldn't release things. That would allow us to build a bridge, from the evidence, straight on to the conclusion. The chairman didn't consult people and if you don't consult people, then you shouldn't release the report.
That would prove that the chairman shouldn't have released the report. So that's what we're gonna be looking for in the answer choices. So I go to answer choice A, It would have been permissible for the chairperson to release the commission's report to the public only if most other members of the commission had first given their consent. This is our answer, although it does bring up a new term, consent.
And that's why a lot of people don't like this answer, or don't pick it on the first pass. But we can see how it works. Remember that what we're trying to prove here is that the chairman shouldn't have released the report. And we were looking for if you don't consult people, then you shouldn't release it.
And this says, it would be permissible, only if he had gotten their consent. So if you don't have consent, you shouldn't release the information. If we take that and put it up with what we already have. We know the chairman didn't consult anyone, this says if you didn't get consent, then you shouldn't have released the forms. Well, if you didn't consult people, it would have been impossible for you to get their consent on anything.
So, the chairman didn't consult anyone. If you don't consult anyone, you can't get their consent. And if you don't get their consent, you're not allowed to release the document. That does allow us to get from the chairman, to not releasing what we were trying to do. So that is our answer choice.
So what's wrong with the other answers? Answer choice B. All of the members of the Commission has signed the report. It's hard to know what signing the report has to do with anything. Does that overrule the requirement to consult people? We don't know.
If anything, it feels like this would hurt the argument because maybe if they signed it, then it was okay to go out. But who knows, it doesn't prove the conclusion regardless. Answer choice C, the chairperson would not have been justified in releasing the commission's report, if any member of the commission had serious reservations. And that's the thing, is we don't know if they had any reservations.
We just know they weren't consulted. We've got know information about their reservations. So this can't help us prove that the chairperson is on the wrong. Answer choice D. The chairperson would have been justified, only if each of the commission's members would have agreed to it's being released, had they been consulted.
No we don't know what would have happened if they'd been consulted. All we know is that they weren't. So whether they would have agreed or wouldn't have agreed, we don't know. So we can't use this to prove the chairperson was in the wrong and then finally answer choice E. Some members of the commission would have preferred the report not be released.
Helps a little bit. I guess if they had preferred it not be released, then he's isn't a little bit in the wrong. But we're not trying to prove the chairperson is a little bit in the wrong. We're trying to prove 100% without any doubts that they shouldn't have released the Election Commission Report.
This just says some people were unhappy. It doesn't prove that the chairperson was in the wrong. So it's not our answer. Answer choice A was our answer.
