Q9 - No member of the Richardson

[adambrown07]

For this problem, the argument seems to be: nobody in the group does both things (acts and administers), and since two people are in the group and do one thing, they can't do another. Answer D seems to have the same argument - no member of a group (corporate attorneys) represents both groups, and since the individual in question is in the "corporate attorney group" and represents one company, she can't represent the other as well. Can you explain where my logic is flawed, and why C would be correct? Thanks!

[noah]

With this matching question the original argument has this structure:

If you're in the group, you can't do both P and A.

These two people are in the group, and since they're not A, they must be P.

But, couldn't they both be something other than a performer or administrator? Maybe they're part of the safety team or part of the costume crew (I'm struggling to think of other roles in a theater group, but I'm sure there are tons!).

(C) has the same structure: No company have have both C and M. D and T are companies and neither has M, so they must have C. Hey folks, what about having your headquarters in beautiful Denver, Colorado?!

As for the wrong answers, there are multiple ways to eliminate many of them, here is a sample focusing on mismatched conclusions:

(A) has a mismatched conclusion. We want "must be X", not "not the only employees."

(B) has a mismatched conclusion - "not being X" is NOT what we want.

(D) also has a mismatched conclusion. We want to learn that the attorney MUST be the other, not that she is NOT something. This also has a mismatched premise - we want to learn that some member of the group is NOT something, not, as we see here, that a member IS something.

(E) also has a mismatched conclusion! "...at least 10 members"?

That clear it up?

[asafezrati]

Noah's method is better and faster, but it should be noted that the other four ACs are not flawed.