A first-term board member

Answer choices

1. A

   Missing #33% picked this

   Simkins is a first-term board member and not an accountant; thus, Simkins should not be

   To trigger this principle and thus derive that someone shouldn't be on the finance committee, we need to establish three things 1. First term board member 2. Not an accountant 3. Membership not supported by all of board This answer never tells us that Simkins membership isn't supported by all the members of the board. If they all support her, she could still have a chance of being on the finance committee.

   3%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion2% picked this

   Timmons is a third-term board member but not an accountant; thus, if all other board members think that Timmons should be on the finance

   We don't need to read this one, if we scan for the conclusion and see that it's trying to prove someone "should be" on the committee. The rule only has the power to prove "should not be", because the conclusion has to match the Right Side of the arrow.

   2%
3. C

   Unclear Application10% picked this

   Ruiz is on the finance committee but is not an accountant; thus, Ruiz's membership must have been supported by all

   We're told that Ruiz is on the finance committee, but not that he should be on the finance committee. So it's not clear we can even apply this rule to his situation. But if we pretended that part was okay, the answer still has a problem. We're told that Ruiz is not an accountant. So if he's first term and not supported by all then he shouldn't be on the board. Since he's on the board, this argument assumes that he was supported by all. But it's possible he wasn't supported by all, and the real reason why he's on the board is that he wasn't a first term board member. If Ruiz is a third term board member, for example, then we don't have any rule to go off of. We wouldn't be able to derive any conclusion about a third term board member.

   10%
4. D

   Correct82% picked this

   Klein is a first-term board member who is not an accountant; thus, Klein should not be allowed on the finance committee if any board

   Why this is right

   To trigger this principle and thus derive that someone shouldn't be on the finance committee, we need to establish three things 1. First term board member 2. Not an accountant 3. Membership not supported by all of board This argument establishes 1 and 2. That means that "if 3 is true, then she shouldn't be on the committee". And that's what this argument concludes. It's pretty spicy / tricky that they did a conditional conclusion where they say, "If we get that 3rd missing idea, then the right side follows", but that is an accurate application of the principle.

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

   82%
5. E

   Missing #14% picked this

   Mabry is a board member who is not an accountant; thus, because Mabry's membership on the finance committee is opposed by most board members,

   To trigger this principle and thus derive that someone shouldn't be on the finance committee, we need to establish three things 1. First term board member 2. Not an accountant 3. Membership not supported by all of board This answer never tells us that Mabry is a first term board member, just that she's a board member.

   4%