Logical reasoning PrepTest 133 · Section 3 · Question 15

Incorrect. The implementation of any plan is out of scope of the argument, which is just about the endorsement itself.

Incorrect. The Chair doesn't need to be opposed to those other ideas, just unwilling to endorse them without seeing them first.

Incorrect. James' motivations for any action he took is out of scope—the only thing that's relevant is the endorsement and any conditions the Chair attached to it.

Incorrect. The rule set out by the Chair for her endorsement isn't what James thinks she'd agree to, but what she actually saw and agreed to.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Department Chair - Endorsed → Draft proposal has all recommendations in final plan
Conclusion - James saying that the proposal had the Department Chair's endorsement was misleading

Answer Anticipation:
First, let's rephrase that conclusion. If it's misleading to say that you have someone's endorsement, then it must be the case that you don't actually have their endorsement.

With that said, we can look at the premise and see that the conditional rule established by the Chair does allow us to reach a conclusion that she didn't provide an endorsement—the contrapositive states:

not Draft proposal has all recommendations in final plan → not Endorsed

So to reach the conclusion, the argument would need to establish that the draft proposal didn't include all the recommendations made in the final plan presented to the Committee. Let's find that answer.

Answer Explanation:
The Chair said that she'd endorse the plan only if the draft she saw included all the recommendations that made it into the final draft. To conclude that it was misleading to claim her endorsement, that would have to not be true and there would have to be proposals not in the draft in James' final presentation. This answer is thus necessary for the argument to work.

Key Takeaway:
In many arguments where a conditional rule is applied to a specific situation, the flaw is that the premises fail to establish the sufficient condition of that rule was reached. When that happens, the correct answer will generally bring up information connecting the situation to that sufficient condition.