Q7 - Journalist: The new mayor is undeniably bold.

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Necessary Assumption

Stimulus Breakdown:
This journalist concludes that the mayor is not introspective. Her evidence for it? He makes assertions with utter certainty and confidence.

Answer Anticipation:
Since the journalist never connects being non-introspective with making claims with total certainty/confidence, we should look for an answer that does that.

Correct answer:
(A)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Exactly what we were looking for! This answer bridges the gap between the one premise and the one conclusion, which makes it necessary (this one also happens to be sufficient). If we negate it to, "Introspective people make confident/certain assertions," the argument falls apart.

(B) Out of scope. This answer doesn't mention introspection, which is the idea we need to connect the premise to.

(C) Out of scope. Again, this is missing a connection to introspection!

(D) Illegal negation. This answer brings up the ideas we were looking for, but it negates them. We need to find something that connects having assertiveness with non-instrospection, and this negates both sides of that connection.

(E) Out of scope. Another answer that misses introspection! Maybe the author of this question should introspect on his trap-answer-writing skills.

Takeaway/Pattern: "Two takeaways:
First, if there's a new term in the conclusion, it will almost always end up, in some way, in the answer.
Second, this question highlights the importance of stripping an argument down to its core. There are several extraneous details that just get in the way (and make those incorrect answer more tempting). Find the conclusion, and only pay attention to the premises that relate to it."

#officialexplanation

[krisk743]

I honestly thought the conclusion was that he was undeniably bold.


I don't see how the not an introspective person is the conclusion, can someone help me differentiate for the future?

[foschoen14]

I honestly thought the conclusion was that he was undeniably bold.


I don't see how the not an introspective person is the conclusion, can someone help me differentiate for the future?

me as well. I got the answer right but was so sure the first sentence was the conclusion

[krisk743]

Thanks admins for responding to the questions above. Much appreciated

[obobob]

Quick question, why are we finding something that fills in the gap between the premise and the conclusion (introspective) despite the fact that it is a Necessary question? Can we use sufficient (connecting the gap logically) assumptions as answers for question cases like this one?

[ohthatpatrick]

The difference between NA and SA isn't about (not looking for gap-filler vs. looking for gap filler).

In any type of Assumption Family question, we're concerned with two different modes of thinking:
- Are there any Missing Links / Ideas needed to connect the dots of the idea math being presented?

- Are there any New Ideas we could raise that would be a good objection to this reasoning / to this conclusion?

You can think of them as Internal Considerations (connective tissue of the ideas presented) vs. External Considerations (new concepts are introduced to the discussion that alter how we think about the discussion).

The correct answer to any Assumption question will perform one of two (overlapping) functions:
- Provide a Missing Link / Idea (internal, regurgitative language)
- Rule out some Possible Objection (usually involves bringing up something totally new)

Sufficient Assumption is almost always the 1st type and only rarely the 2nd type.
Necessary Assumption is about 50/50.

Because of that tendency with correct answers, we tend to read Sufficient Assumption with more of a "find the gap" mindset. But when we read Necessary Assumption, we might use two mindsets:
1. call out any missing links / missing ideas needed for the logic to cohere
2. if we don't have any #1's, think of possible Objections (think of what you might say if you were accepting the Evidence but rejecting the Conclusion)

The definitional difference between Necessary and Sufficient assumption is
NA: which answer, if negated, most weakens
or which answer matches the author's thinking

SA: which answer, if added to the evidence, would allow us to logically derive the conclusion

Our author was clearly thinking (A), and if we negated (A), it would clearly weaken the argument. That's the only measure by which we need to judge a Necessary Assumption answer.

It so happens that (A) also is written strongly enough that it would fill the gap and prove the conclusion being made.

----------

fyi, for the previous posters wondering how we'd identify the last claim as the conclusion, we have to really go off the conclusion-wording of
[this previous fact] demonstrates that _____

[WillB210]

If anyone is paying attention, I'd like to resuscitate this one if I can. I would argue that their are no necessary assumptions among the answers, and I'm hoping someone can disabuse me of this. I'm hoping there is something simple I'm overlooking.

(B), (C), and (E) are obviously incorrect.


(A) is clearly a sufficient answer since it is the contrapositive of the conclusion. When negated, however, the journalist's conclusion is still possible. The negation is "introspective -> certainty/confidence." That fact that "certainty/confidence" is true only means that the mayor could be introspective, not must be. Given that door is open to either "introspective" or not "introspective," I cannot be said that this is a necessary assumption. If an assumption is necessary, then it's opposite would make the conclusion impossible.

(D) is a mistaken negation, as pointed out in the original post, and is not necessary.

If what I suggest above is correct, strictly speaking, there are no necessary assumptions in the answers.

Therefore, (A) would be the correct answer if a "required assumption" does not actually mean necessary in the sense of formal logic, but rather means "necessary unless no necessary assumptions are available, in which case you would pick the sufficient assumption (or whichever assumption weakens the answer the least)."