received a pm.
A when negated destroys the argument!!
Yes, it certainly does. Choice A is indeed a necessary assumption. Choice A reads:
A. Not being able to take college-level courses while in prison is unlikely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed.
which, removing the double negatives "not" and "unlikely" can be read as:
"Being able to take college-level courses while in prison IS likely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed."
which, if we negate, becomes:
"Being able to take college-level courses while in prison ISN'T likely to deter anyone from a crime that he or she might otherwise have committed."
in which case the argument certainly falls apart.
___________
does C mean
both groups were equally probable
OR
presence of already here does the trick ?
Not sure I quite understand your question but Ron was bang on when he said that the word "already" in choice C also makes choice C a necessary assumption. "already" means before actually taking the courses.
Choice C when negated also destroys the assumption: If the group of inmates who chose to take college-level courses WERE already less likely than other inmates to commit crimes after being released, then the argument falls apart for the reasons Ron discussed above.
There are two logically correct answer choices here, two necessary assumptions among the answer choices: choices A and C.
This is a bad question, and I wonder what the source is.