PT110 · S2 · Q10 Although the charter of Westside

This says learning disabilities ? special ed. needs We wanted if they have no students ? then they have none w/ with learning disabilities special ed. needs If we knew that "all students with special educational needs have learning disabilities", then knowing there are no students with learning disabilities would tell us that there are no students with special educational needs. But this answer is saying the reverse, that all students with learning disabilities have special educational needs. Another way to put it would be this -- the reason we didn't believe the conclusion in the original argument is that it's possible that Westside is not in violation of its charter, that it does have students with special educational needs, just not students with learning disabilities. For example, a deaf child or a child in a wheelchair may have special educational needs but not a learning disability (such as dyslexia / ADHD). Westside could say, "We're not in violation. Sure we don't have any students with learning disabilities, but we have some deaf students, and they have special educational needs". Does this answer rule out that objection? No. Meanwhile, a reversed version of this answer, "All students with special educational needs have learning disabilities" would rule out that objection. You couldn't say, "Sure we don't have students with learning disabilities, but we still have students with special ed needs" if it were true that "all students with special ed needs have learning disabilities".

Strangely, this answer just tells us what we already know (or at least a closely related inference). We already knew that no student with learning disabilities had enrolled in the school, which tells us logically that no students with learning disabilities attend the school. (You can't be said to "attend a school" if you're not enrolled there) Since this answer adds nothing we didn't already know, it can't be right. Also, we know that we're specifically trying to get from, "if no one has learning disabilities, then no one has special educational needs".

The correct answer to Sufficient Assumption (almost?) never introduces brand new concepts. In this case "should" is totally new. We're only evaluating whether Westside is / isn't in violation of charter, not whether they should / shouldn't be.

Like (C), this brings in a brand new concept. In this case, it's whether or not the charter can be modified. But the argument is only about whether the charter, as written, is currently being violated.