In view of the considerable length

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Trigger Match2% picked this

   Any supervisor who knowingly tolerates widespread corruption among his or her subordinates should

   This rule is worth considering because it has the right kind of Conclusion idea in the outcome: If knowingly tolerates then should widespread corruption ? be held amoung subordinates accountable

   2%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this

   If a person has been in a position of authority for a long time and all of that person’s subordinates are corrupt, then he

   This answer never gets off the ground because this principle would only prove that, "the chief could not help but know about the corruption". We're trying to prove that "the chief should be held accountable for the corruption". Those are two different enough ideas that we wouldn't bother reading this one closely on a first pass.

   6%
3. C

   Bad Conclusion Match1% picked this

   A supervisor should not be held accountable for widespread corruption among his or her subordinates unless the supervisor could reasonably be expected

   This one looks to have acceptable conclusion wording from a quick glance, but once we see the conditional indicator word "unless" (unless X = if it's not the case that X), we can see that the right side of the arrow would say "should not be held accountable". We want it to say that someone should be held accountable. This rule looks like this: If supervisor could not be then should not reasonably expected to ? be held know about corruption accountable

   1%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match0% picked this

   If corruption is rampant among a certain group, then the person in charge cannot be expected to take corrective action if that person has

   This answer never gets off the ground because this principle would only prove that, "the chief cannot be expected to take corrective action". We're trying to prove that "the chief should be held accountable for the corruption". Those are two different enough ideas that we wouldn't bother reading this one closely on a first pass.

   0%
5. E

   Correct90% picked this

   If a person has been in a position of authority for a long time, then there is no excuse that can absolve the person

   Why this is right

   This gives us a rule that says: If someone has then no excuse been in a position ? can absolve them of authority for of responsibility for a long time widespread corruption among subordinates Is the trigger applicable to our chief? Has she been in a position of authority for a long time? Yes, "she's had a tenure of considerable length as head of the department". Does the outcome of this rule support the conclusion? Yes, we're trying to support the idea that she should be held accountable for the widespread corruption in the department, and this says "no excuse can absolve her of responsibility for the widespread corruption among her subordinates". If we were worried that this answer sounded Too Strong, we want to remind ourselves that there's no such thing as Too Strong on questions like Strengthen, Principle-Strengthen, Weaken, Paradox, and Sufficient Assumption (all the questions that ask, "Which of the following, if true/valid/assumed ...")

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

   90%