Cecile’s association requires public disclosure

Answer choices

1. A

   Out of Scope: future12% picked this

   Cecile will not be appointed to a position in the association that authorizes her

   The conclusion we're trying to prove is only about the present tense ("at this time"), so anything about the future is totally irrelevant.

   12%
2. B

   Out of Scope: conflicts of interest8% picked this

   Cecile’s office and her position on the timber business’s board create no

   The concept of "conflicts of interest" appears nowhere in the argument. On Sufficient Assumption, correct answers almost never add a new concept. They are supposed to just be completing the logic circuit of the ideas that were already presented.

   8%
3. C

   Correct67% picked this

   The association’s requirements provide the only reasons there might be for Cecile to

   Why this is right

   The premises successfully proved that Cecile's association wouldn't require her to publicly disclose at this time. But the conclusion makes an unwarranted leap to the idea that "there is no reason for her to disclose", ignoring the possibility that there might be other reasons (such as running for public office) why she might have reason to publicly disclose her investments at this time. This answer extinguishes all such objections. It says, "Nope -- the association's rules are the only possible reason she'd have" If that's true, then Cecile currently has no reason to publicly disclose.

   Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   67%
4. D

   Weakens, if anything5% picked this

   The timber business on whose board Cecile sits is owned by

   The only other missing link we thought the argument might have was the (seemingly justifiable) move that "If she only sits on the board of a small timber business, then she does not sit on the board of a petrochemical business". This answer kind of looks like that, except it's going the opposite direction. It's making it seem like the timber business is also kind of a petrochemical business (in the sense that it's a subsidiary of a petrochemical business). That would only serve to weaken the argument, not to prove the conclusion.

   5%
5. E

   Out of Scope: investments9% picked this

   Cecile owns no investments in the

   It's irrelevant whether Cecile has any investments in petrochemical. It only matters whether or not she sits on the board of a petrochemical company (which we are already told she does not).

   9%