People who have never been asked to do more than they can easily do are people who never do all they can. Alex is someone who has clearly not done all that he is capable of doing, so obviously do more than what comes to him easily.
What this question is testing
The Original
The argument says:
Evaluate
This is "affirming the consequent" — a classic logic mistake. The premise gives one cause of underperformance (never being pushed). The argument then sees underperformance and assumes that one cause must be at work. But underperformance can come from many sources: laziness, illness, lack of resources. Just because everyone never-pushed underperforms does not mean every underperformer was never pushed.
It is like saying: Bob could have a cold or allergies. Coughing does not narrow it down.
Goal
Find the answer with this exact form: a conditional, an observation that the conclusion side of the conditional holds, then a conclusion that the original cause holds.
Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.