It would have been permissible for the chairperson to release the commission's report to the public only if most other members of the
Why this is right
No one's picking this on a first pass, that's for sure. We didn't do anything wrong when we pre-phrased "if didn't consult, then shouldn't have released", this is just LSAC being creative. "only if" = necessary, so we put the attached idea to the right of the arrow. Permissible to most members of EC release report → gave their consent We can see that this answer has some potential, because if we contrapose it, we'll have the right side of the arrow we need: __________ → not permissible to release So can we establish that contrapositive trigger? Do we know that "most members of the EC did not give their consent"? Yes, we do know that. None of them were even consulted, so of course they couldn't have given their consent.* According to this rule, it was impermissible to release the report, so we've proven the Conclusion. Historically, it was easy to predict actual answers on Sufficient Assumption. More recently, we have to have a flexible mindset with how the correct answer might look or work. Think to yourself: If I combine this with what I know from the Evidence, does it go anywhere? Does it get me all the way to the idea in the Conclusion? ( * some of us might scheme an exotic scenario in which you're not consulted, but you give your consent anyway ... you proactively email the chairperson consent, without her needing to consult you. You're not wrong. It's a sloppy correct answer for something that's supposed to be 100% airtight. LSAC just be sloppy sometimes, and we have to go with best available)
Skill tested: Sufficient Assumption · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.