Logical reasoning PrepTest 106 · Section 1 · Question 7

The Auditor concludes that the clinic is violating the terms of the donation, whereas the Administrator believes that it isn’t, so he doesn’t believe the Auditor is broadly correct.

There’s no discussion of what should/ought to be done, so this answer is out of scope.

The Administrator is, if anything, arguing that being told what to do (how to spend the money) isn’t the same as being told how to do it, since there’s a “creative” way to spend the money that conforms to the stipulations placed on it.

The Administrator doesn’t believe that there has been a violation, so he doesn’t argue anything about assessing the severity of it!

This is the closest answer to saying that the Administrator says the Auditor is wrong, so we should dig in even though it is really abstract and doesn’t seem to line up with our anticipation. However, the Administrator does reinterpret a key phrase in the Auditor’s argument - minimizing suffering. The Auditor claims that investing in new diagnostic technology doesn’t count because it doesn’t “flow directly to its patients.” However, the Administrator redefines that phrase to include indirect ways of minimizing suffering, not just directly spending it on patients. And in redefining that key phrase, he undermines the assumption that spending money on anything other than the patients can’t minimize suffering. This definitely isn’t an answer we’d anticipate, but it lines up with our view that the Administrator thinks the Auditor is wrong, so we spent the time to analyze it and found out that it’s correct!