PrepTest 123, Section 2, Question 6
An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to(43 more words not shown)
The argument's conclusion follows logically(8 more words not shown)
- AAnyone with a(15 more words not shown)
- BOnly candidates eligible(15 more words not shown)
- CAn undergraduate degree(11 more words not shown)
- DIf Murray did(15 more words not shown)
- EThe felony charge(16 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Executive Administrator? We were talking about the executive board. Does the board's rule even apply to that job?
Let's keep what we do know. An undergraduate degree is required for appointment to the board. Having one doesn't guarantee a place; a candidate could meet that requirement and still be rejected. We also know a felony conviction rules a candidate out. So Murray's degrees don't save his board application. He has a felony conviction, and that disqualifies him.
But the conclusion rejects Murray for a different position. Maybe the administrator is an assistant with different requirements. The shared word “executive” doesn't establish that the two jobs have the same eligibility rules.
What we’re looking for
We're asked to make the conclusion follow. Then give us the connection: to become the administrator, a candidate must be eligible for the board. We already know Murray fails the board's requirements. Carrying that requirement over to the administrator position would establish that he can't get that job either.
Working the answers
- A
This rule covers someone with a master's degree and no felony conviction. Murray has the conviction, so he doesn't meet the description. A doesn't tell us whether he can be the administrator, and it still gives us no connection between that job and the board.
- BCorrect
Board eligibility is now required for the administrator job. Murray is not eligible for the board because of his felony conviction. Since he fails a requirement for becoming the administrator, he cannot be accepted. The answer supplies the exact connection missing from the argument.
- C
Removing a degree requirement doesn't disqualify Murray. He already has the degree anyway. More importantly, C doesn't tell us that the board's restriction on felony convictions applies to the administrator position. That is the restriction we need to carry across.
- D
What if he does have a conviction? That's Murray's actual situation, and D doesn't settle it. Saying he would be accepted without a conviction doesn't mean he would be rejected with one.
An employer could be willing to hire him either way. D would still be true in that situation, but the argument's conclusion would be false. We need a rule requiring rejection, not one describing another situation in which he would be accepted.
- E
Relevant isn't the same as disqualifying. The conviction could matter to the duties of the job, and the employer could consider it but still hire Murray. We need to establish that he cannot be accepted. E gives the employer something to consider without establishing that result.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.