presupposes without justification that Joan’s not getting an A on her term paper prevents her from passing the course
Why this is right
Since this answer starts with takes for granted / presumes / presupposes that X, we can just ask ourselves, "Was the author assuming X?" Did this author assume that Joan's not getting an A on the term paper prevents her from passing the course without doing the class presentation? Yes! That perfectly matches the reasoning move. The author establishes that Joan didn't get an A, and then moves from that idea to the conclusion that she will have to do the class presentation in order to pass the course. If we negated this assumption (not getting an A doesn't prevent Joan from passing without doing the class presentation), would that weaken? Totally! This author thinks she has to do the class presentation in order to pass, but this negation would be saying the opposite. Why is it bad for the author to be assuming that not getting an A prevents Joan from passing the course without doing the class presentation? Because we were never told that passing the course w/o doing the class presentation was dependent on getting an A. We know that getting an A is one potential way that you can pass the course without doing the class presentation (sufficient). But we were never told it's the only way to pass the course without doing the class presentation (necessary), as the author seems to be thinking.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.