PrepTest 153

Incorrect. This could be true, but it wouldn't do the job of a sufficient assumption. The conclusion here is that Landis violated his duties. If we still don't know what constitutes a violation, we can't prove the conclusion valid.

Incorrect. If you picked this, you're a generous person, but your logic is incorrect. This just strengthens a premise, while we're looking for something that validates the conclusion fully.

Incorrect. Points for being funny, but no. We're trying to fully validate the editorialist's conclusion, not ways to get Landis off the hook.

"Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

Stimulus Summary:
That dirty politician Landis has spent $10,000 redecorating his office. Many people are saying that Landis violated his official duties if he used public funds, but the editorialist goes farther: Even if he spent out of pocket, Landis violated his duties. That's because such lavish spending is immoral given the poverty rate.

Answer Anticipation:
Notice the gap in the argument? "immoral" and "violating official duties" aren't connected. How is lavish, immoral spending by itself supposed to justify the conclusion that Landis violated his duties if we don't know what his duties are? We need a sufficient assumption to link these two concepts together.

Answer Explanation:
This works perfectly. If lavish spending is immoral and immoral acts violate Landis's official duties, then a nice, neat transitive conclusion gives you that lavish spending on remodeling is a violation of one's official duties. A perfect sufficient assumption.

Key Takeaway:
Diagrammable sufficient assumption questions are usually looking for you to fill in the gap between premises and conclusion. Diagramming will help you see that gap. Keep in mind also that any new terms in the conclusion must also be present in the sufficient assumption. In this case, "immoral" was new."

Incorrect. This probably isn't true, but, more importantly, it isn't relevant to the argument's conclusion. It worsens Landis's immoral behavior, but it doesn't tell us about violation of duty.