PrepTest 118, Section 1, Question 3
A reason Larson cannot do the assignment is(50 more words not shown)
The argument depends on assuming(5 more words not shown)
- ALarson has the(4 more words not shown)
- BThe task cannot(12 more words not shown)
- CFranks would be(11 more words not shown)
- DThe task cannot(11 more words not shown)
- ENo one who(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why does this have to go to a supervisor?
Larson can't do the assignment because her scheduling conflict is unavoidable. Let's accept that; we can't solve the problem by telling her to skip the other commitment. Franks also can't do it because the task requires more assertiveness than he has.
But ruling out those two doesn't leave Parker as the only person in the company. Could an ordinary employee do it? Could a supervisor from another department step in? Could the company bring in someone else? Parker is the only remaining supervisor in this department, but we haven't been told that this is the entire pool of possible candidates.
What we’re looking for
The necessary-assumption question asks what restriction the argument relies on. To insist on Parker, the author has to rule out assigning the task outside the shipping department's supervisors. Otherwise, our alternatives remain open.
Working the answers
- A
Larson could also lack assertiveness. The passage gives a reason she cannot do the assignment, not an exhaustive list of all her shortcomings. Either way, the unavoidable conflict rules her out, so the argument doesn't need to establish that she has this other qualification.
- BCorrect
This restricts the candidates to the three people the argument considers. Larson and Franks are unavailable for the stated reasons, leaving Parker. Without this restriction, eliminating the other two shipping supervisors doesn't establish that the assignment must go to Parker. Someone outside that group could still be an option.
- C
Removing one reason to reject Franks doesn't guarantee that he would get the assignment. He might have a scheduling conflict too, or there might be another obstacle. The author only needs the current reason to eliminate him; the argument doesn't depend on what would happen if he became more assertive.
- D
Any scheduling conflict is much broader than Larson's unavoidable conflict. Someone else might have an unimportant meeting they could cancel. The argument can allow that person to resolve the conflict while still ruling Larson out. D turns a specific obstacle into a rule about every conflict.
- E
We don't need everyone outside this group to lack assertiveness. The CEO might be extremely assertive, yet company policy could require a shipping supervisor to handle this particular task. That would preserve the restriction the argument needs without making E true.
E could help rule out other candidates by giving them all the same disqualifying weakness. But a helpful reason for the restriction isn't automatically a required reason. B states the restriction itself; E supplies one unnecessarily strong explanation for it.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.