Pt 56, S2, Q15 - If Agnes's research proposal is approved

[bbirdwell]

This argument is filled with conditional statements and, on the surface, appears convoluted. It’s best to take each piece and understand the underlying logic. The first sentence states that if Agnes’s proposal is approved, then the fourth floor lab will be cleaned out. Next, we learn that if Immanuel’s proposal is approved, he will continue to work in the second floor lab (implying that the fourth floor lab will not need to be cleaned out for him). With that under our belts, we can look at the final two statements, which prove essential to understanding the argument.

Remember that the word "only," when used to define a subset of given articles (of all the students, only the fifth-graders will go on the field trip) signifies a conditional relationship _ one that we can construct in the typical "If, then" form. In the example just given, we know that IF Billy is going on the field trip, THEN he is a fifth grader. Notice that it is INCORRECT to infer that IF Billy is a fifth-grader, he is going on the field trip. Whatever follows the word "only" is a necessary condition and not a sufficient one, thus whatever follows "only" goes on the right (then) side of a conditional statement. In this argument, then, since only the proposals supported by the director will be approved, we know that IF a proposal is approved, then it has the director’s support: Approved --> Director supports. However, we do not know that the Director’s support means a proposal will be approved. In part, what makes this tricky is that it involves a detail creep as well as some tricky conditional language: the words "approve" and "support" are easy to mistake as being interchangeable.

The last sentence states that the director will support both Agnes and Immanuel, and that therefore the fourth-floor lab will be cleaned out. Which is to say, since the director supports both Agnes and Immanuel, Agnes will be approved: Director supports --> Approved.

This is an invalid inference and thus the flaw that the correct answer choice, (B) identifies. While a given proposal must have the director’s support in order to be approved, just because the director supports it doesn’t mean the proposal will necessarily get approved. There are apparently other factors influencing the approval of a given proposal (board of trustees, faculty, etc...).

(A) is incorrect. There needn’t be justification that the fourth floor lab is bigger. The premises of the argument imply that the fourth floor lab is bigger. This not a logical flaw in the argument.
(C) is irrelevant. The level of enthusiasm of the director’s support has no bearing on the argument’s logic.
(D) is incorrect. The conclusion of the argument is that because the director supports both Agnes’s proposal (and Immanuel’s), the fourth-floor lab must be cleaned. Whether or not Immanuel wants to move to a bigger lab has no logical relevance to this reasoning.
(E) has no relevance to the argument. Furthermore, no justification is necessary for Agnes’s need to move into the fourth-floor lab if her proposal is approved. That she will need this lab is presented as fact, and we must accept it as so.