answer

Hi Lucas, thanks for bringing this question up. This passage is a classic example of making a conditional reasoning error. In this specific instance, the passage makes a conditional statement, and then confuses the necessary and sufficient when making a conclusion. Let's see how: Premise: Seeking job at international organization - > Spend lot of time travelling abroad So far this is just a regular conditional statement, but now look at what they do with the conclusion. Conclusion: Spend lot of time travelling abroad - > Seeking job at international organization This is clearly an incorrect interpretation of necessary and sufficient. Spending lots of time travelling is a necessary prerequisite for seeking a job at an international organization. However, it is not sufficient to determine that someone is seeking a job at an international organization. It has this all mixed up. Just because we have the following: A - > B Does not mean we can conclude B - > A The only things we know from A - > B are: A - > B and Not B - > Not A. Answer choice D makes the exact same mistake as the passage: Premise: Negotiating personal loan - > Go to bank Conclusion: Go to bank - > Negotiating personal loan I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions.