#3 - Some members have criticized the club's president for

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (E)

The first sentence of the stimulus introduces a position (“some members have criticized…”) that is
predictably rejected in the second. The author defends the decision of the current president to invite
Dr. Hines without consulting other club members, because the previous club president did the same
when he invited a tax accountant.

This argument has several flaws: First, it relies on the use of analogy, which is only valid to the
extent that the comparison between Dr. Hines and the tax accountant is a reasonable one. This is not
necessarily a given: what if hiring a tax accountant was an urgent matter requiring immediate action,
whereas Dr. Hines’ speech could have been planned months in advance? Or perhaps the president
simply has more discretion in hiring an accountant than in hiring a speaker. Second, even if the
analogy is not faulty, we still have no evidence that the previous president acted appropriately in
hiring the tax accountant. If not, then perhaps the current president acted inappropriately as well.

Because this is an assumption question, the answer must contain a statement upon which the
argument depends, i.e. a statement that is necessary for the conclusion to be true.

Typically, if you see a major weakness in the argument, look for a Defender assumption stating that
the particular weakness does not exist. In other words, the author must be assuming that (1) hiring
a tax accountant is similar enough to inviting a guest speaker; and (2) the previous president acted
appropriately in hiring the tax accountant. This prephrase reveals answer choice (E) to be correct.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice may seem attractive, because it supports the analogy
between the actions of the current and the previous club presidents. Although this statement supports
the conclusion of the argument, it is not necessary for the conclusion to be true. Even if the previous
president never invited speakers without consulting other club members, that does not prove that the
current president somehow acted inappropriately. Since the logical opposite of this answer choice
doesn’t weaken the author’s conclusion, this is not an assumption upon which the argument depends.

Answer choice (B): Whether or not other club members expected to be consulted about the hiring of
the tax accountant is irrelevant to determining whether the current president acted appropriately in
inviting the speaker.

Answer choice (C): Whether or not Hr. Hines accepted the president’s invitation has no bearing on
the conclusion of this argument.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice weakens the conclusion. As discussed above, if the club
president has more discretion in hiring an accountant than in hiring a speaker, then we can no
longer rely on the analogy between the two. It is therefore possible that the previous president acted
appropriately, whereas the current president did not.

Answer choice (E): This is the correct answer choice, as it agrees with our prephrase. If this
answer is troubling you, use the Assumption Negation Technique and ask yourself if the following
statement would undermine the argument:

• The club’s previous president did not act appropriately in hiring the tax accountant without
  first consulting other club members.

This clearly shows that the author’s conclusion is flawed and weakens her argument. Therefore,
answer choice (E) is an assumption upon which the argument depends.

[ericau02]

Hi can ac A be explained further as to why it is not a necessary assumption or why it does not prove that the president acted appropriately ??? Im confused bc the explanation above says prove why they acted inappropriately when we are proving why they acted appropriately?

[Brook Miscoski]

erica,

The stimulus concludes that the president acted appropriately, and we are asked to find the assumption.

When the explanation talks about whether behavior was inappropriate, we are discussing the Assumption Negation test. If negating (A) will invalidate the argument, (A) is the correct choice.

(A) states that other presidents invited speakers without consulting anyone. Let's negate it:

Other presidents never invited speakers without consulting the members.

Does that Negation prove that the invitation was inappropriate? No--all it proves is what prior actions were. Thus, (A) fails the Assumption Negation test.

Another reason that (A) is wrong is that the stimulus already cites prior behavior. Knowledge about whether the behavior is appropriate, not knowledge about what happened in the past, is what is required to determine whether behavior is appropriate.