Logical reasoning PrepTest 118 · Section 1 · Question 3

Incorrect. While the stimulus rules Larson out from doing the assignment because of her unavoidable scheduling conflict, it's possible she also has other disqualifiers—such as lacking the assertiveness. The only person this argument assumes has the required assertiveness is Parker—the person it concludes must get the assignment.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Neither Larson nor Franks can do the assignment, and Parker is the only other supervisor from shipping, so Parker must do it.

Answer Anticipation:
This argument attempts to reach its conclusion by ruling out alternatives. When an argument uses that method of reasoning, however, it needs to establish that the list it eliminates alternatives from is comprehensive. Here, it's established that Larson, Franks, and Parker are the only shipping supervisors, but it doesn't establish that a shipping supervisor must be the one to do the assignment—it's possible someone else could. Therefore, the correct answer will establish this—that the assignment must be done by a shipping supervisor, so ruling our Larson (unavoidable conflict) and Franks (doesn't have something the task requires) would lead to Parker being the only one left who can do it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer establishes that a supervisor from shipping must do the assignment. If that's not the case, then there are other options besides Parker even if Larson and Franks can't do it—a supervisor from a different department, or potentially even a regular employee from shipping.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument proceeds by eliminating alternatives to reach a conclusion, it must establish that the list it eliminates from is comprehensive. If there are alternatives out there that aren't considered, that's a big problem for the argument.

Incorrect. What would happen in a different universe isn't necessary for a given argument to work.

Incorrect. The argument only relies on an unavoidable conflict preventing someone from receiving the assignment, not "any kind" of conflict.

Incorrect. The argument does require that non-supervisors in shipping can't receive the assignment. However, it doesn't require that they are not given the task because they lack assertiveness—any reason to eliminate them (including just that they're not supervisors) would allow the argument to hold together.