Shouldn't it be like...

Remember that a premise is necessary for a conclusion if the falsity of the premise guarantees or brings about the falsity of the conclusion. First we check to see if the answer choice strengthens the passage, and then, if it does strengthen, we negate the answer choice to see if its negation makes the argument fall apart. If the answer choice does both these things, then it is our correct answer. The conclusion of the argument is "It is clear that the campaign advisors should stay out of the limelight and let the press report on the most revealing positions on substantive issues the candidates have taken." Why? The press reports on the campaign advisors and not the candidates, which causing voters to be deprived of the information they need to make informed decisions because the press is ignoring substantive policy issues by reporting only on the process of the campaign through their strategy of reporting on the campaign advisors and not on the candidates. (A) is incorrect because it does not strengthen the argument. Chess being an appropriate analogy is completely irrelevant to the point being made in this argument. (B) clearly strengthens the argument by pointing out that politicians in the election are actually taking positions on substantive policy issues. Let's negate now to make sure (B) is also necessary to the argument. The negation of (B) would be, "the candidates in the election are not taking positions on substantive policy issues." Notice that this would cause the argument to fall apart because even if the campaign advisors did stay out of the limelight, there would be no positions on substantive policy issues for the press to report. (C) is incorrect because it is irrelevant. This argument is not about the press determining the substantive issues in the campaign, but rather the press reporting on them so that voters are not deprived of the information they need to make informed decisions. Notice that when (C) is negated, i.e. "how the press reports politics does not determine the substantive issues in the campaign," has no impact on this argument. (D) is incorrect because it weakens the argument. If voters are not paying enough attention to the election to be able to make informed decisions, then it doesn't matter how the press is reporting. Notice that when (D) is negated, i.e. "the voters are not paying enough attention to the election to be able to make informed decisions," strengthens the argument. However, we are looking for an answer choice that strengthens but then destroys the argument when negated. (E) is incorrect because it weakens the argument. If there is no difference between reporting on the political process and reporting on substantive issues then the campaign advisors staying out of the limelight would not change what the press is reporting on. Notice that when (E) is negated, i.e. "there is some difference between reporting on the political process and reporting on substantive issues," strengthens the argument. However, we are looking for an answer choice that strengthens but then destroys the argument when negated. Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Thanks bunch!!!!

On my copy of this question it says the correct answer is C.

Same the book says the answer is C

Yes, the book says answer C, though I agree with answer B. Any idea what's going on with this Mehran?

Heads up. Same issue as above.

The correct answer is in fact B. I looked it up. Would be nice if these guys actually responded in a reasonable amount of time to the message boards.

@jamesio @Alexx637 just confirming that you are saying in the hardcopy textbook, the answer for Question 5 in the Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions is (C) not (B)? Because I am seeing (B) both in the app as well as in the hardcopy materials. But yes, to alleviate any confusion here, the correct answer choice is (B), not (C). Sorry for the confusion. Plesae let us know if you have any other questions.

I understand why the answer would be B, however I ruled it out because looking at the negation - wouldn't candidates "not taking positions on policy issues" be considered a position?