An undergraduate degree is necessary

Answer choices

1. A

   Negation7% picked this

   Anyone with a master’s degree and without a felony conviction is eligible for appointment to

   This negates the FC ? ~EB second premise.

   7%
2. B

   Correct73% picked this

   Only candidates eligible for appointment to the executive board can be accepted for the position

   Why this is right

   This bridges the gap EA ? EB between the Executive Administrator and the executive board. Only signifies a right side / required idea. So, we get "If can be accepted for EA, then eligible for appt to EB" and by contrapositive "If not eligible for EB, can't be accepted for EA". We know Murray has a felony, so he can't be appointed to the EB. Thus, he's ineligible for EB. And so according to this rule, he can't be accepted for EA, which proves our conclusion.

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

   73%
3. C

   Weakens1% picked this

   An undergraduate degree is not necessary for acceptance for the position

   This weakens the assumption since an undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board, which the argument assumes is necessary for appointment to the position of Executive Administrator.

   1%
4. D

   Illegal Negation18% picked this

   If Murray did not have a felony conviction, he would be accepted for the position

   If this rule said, "If you have a felony conviction, then you can't be accepted as EA" then it would successfully prove the conclusion. But this answer is an illegal negation of that idea. It's a useless rule to us, because we know we can't trigger it. Murray does have a felony conviction.

   18%
5. E

   Out of Scope1% picked this

   The felony charge on which Murray was convicted is relevant to the duties of the

   Whether the felony charge was relevant to the duties of the position of Executive Administrator is not relevant to the argument. This would also be Too Weak, even if we considered it impactful. The fact that the felony charge would be relevant to the EA's duties still would not provide PROOF, which is what we need, that Murray can't be the EA. The logical force of the felony charge was to establish that Murray can't be appointed to the board. We've already "used" Murray's felony conviction to move forward in the argument. We're trying to get an answer that will move us forward from "can't be appointed to board" to the finish line of "can't be accepted for EA".

   1%