Please, explain this question to me.

[mariselaclovis]

P: Most mortgage companies require borrowers to have disaster insurance, but not disability insurance.

(A): (What mortgage companies require is an accurate way to gauge what is necessary.) THIS IS THE RIGHT ANSWER.

(A): (Mortgage companies lose far more money when a borrower loses a home to disaster rather than disability.) THIS IS THE ANSWER THAT I HAVE CHOSEN. The book instructs us to always look for a necessary assumption when the question stem does not specify which kind to look for. I thought this one partially filled the arrow or was required for the argument to hold.

C: It is likely unnecessary to have disability insurance.

Thank you.

Michela

[tommywallach]

Hey Marise,

Hmm. The problem is you are making a leap: you are connecting up necessity with money. But nothing in the prompt requires or suggests that.

Premise: MC require disaster, not disability

Conclusion: Disability is unnecessary.

The thing we need to connect here is that what MCs require has something to do with whether something is necessary or not. The assumption you picked explains the premise, but it doesn't actually link to the conclusion at all. Make sense?

-t