Q19 - Thomas: The club president

[daniel.g.winter]

Can someone please explain why (A) is correct here? The other answers don't make sense, but I don't see for myself why (A) does. Thanks in advance!

[maryadkins]

We're asked to identify the flaw in Thomas's argument. The core of Thomas's argument is:

Only members in good standing can vote -->

Jeffrey was in good standing, so it was a violation to disallow his vote

The problem is that the rule that ONLY people who qualify to do something can do that thing is different from a rule that they MUST be allowed to do that thing. If we restate the premise above as an "if... then" statement, it becomes, "If you can vote, then you must be in good standing." We know that if someone can vote, it's because he or she is in good standing--only people in good standing can vote.

Flipping this to read, "If you are in good standing, then you must be able to vote" is reversing the logic and a false contrapositive. That's what Thomas is doing.

Jeffrey was in good standing, which meant he wasn't prohibited from voting--if he hadn't been in good standing, that would have violated our necessary condition, and it wouldn't even be possible for him to vote. But not being prohibited from voting is distinct from being authorized to vote by the mere fact that he was in good standing. (A) gets at this distinction.

(B) is wrong because Thomas doesn't question the club president's character.

(C) is wrong. Thomas's argument is not about denying or failing to deny statements.

(D) is irrelevant.

(E) is also irrelevant. Althea's level of expertise on club rules has nothing to do with Thomas's reasoning.

[WaltGrace1983]

How does (A) apply in plain English? Is it like the following?:

Because he is in good standing, this standing does not prohibit him. However, just because his standing doesn't prohibit him doesn't mean he is authorized. There still may be other things that don't allow him authorization...

[maryadkins]

Bingo.