dan
Thanks Received: 155
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 202
Joined: March 10th, 2009
 
 
 

Q6 - An undergraduate degree is

by dan Fri Dec 31, 1999 8:00 pm

6. (B)
Question Type: Assumption

In order to be appointed to the executive board, one must have an undergraduate degree and be free of felony convictions. Murray has an undergraduate degree, but he has a felony conviction, so he cannot be appointed to the executive board. In drawing his/her conclusion the author assumes, however, that the qualifications for the executive board are the same as the qualifications for the position of Executive Administrator. Did you catch this shift in detail? Answer (B) correctly expresses the assumption made by the author. Notice that the assumption, when stated explicitly, actually fixes the hole in the argument.

(A) is not a required assumption.
(C) is not a required assumption. In fact, the argument seems to assume that an undergraduate degree is required for the position.
(D) is tempting, but it fails to close the gap between executive board and Executive Administrator.
(E) is not a required assumption. It doesn’t matter if the felony charge is relevant to the job or not.


#officialexplanation
 
dandrew
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 14
Joined: January 26th, 2013
 
 
 

Re: Q6 - An undergraduate degree is

by dandrew Fri Sep 20, 2013 12:22 pm

If the question asked for "an assumption" (necessary) instead of what "follows logically" (sufficient), would (D) work as a necessary assumption? If negated, it would destroy the conclusion.
User avatar
 
maryadkins
Thanks Received: 641
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1261
Joined: March 23rd, 2011
 
 
 

Re: Q6 - An undergraduate degree is

by maryadkins Mon Sep 23, 2013 5:03 am

If we negate (D), it would be what?

"If Murray did not have a felony conviction, he would NOT be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator."

How does this destroy the argument? The stimulus doesn't give us any conditions for why someone would HAVE to be given a position anywhere--in other words, we're not given any sufficient conditions in this argument. We're just given two necessary conditions:

-undergrad degree
-no felonies

If negating an answer choice (like (D)) just tells us that someone won't get appointed, it doesn't destroy the argument, because the argument isn't about reasons why someone must be appointed. It's about what they must have at a minimum in order even to be eligible. It leaves room for plenty of people, including Murray, not to be appointed at all.