Critical Reasoning

6. An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment
to the executive board. Further, no one with a felony
conviction can be appointed to the board. Thus,
Murray, an accountant with both a bachelor's and a
master's degree, cannot be accepted for the position of
Executive Administrator, since he has a felony
conviction.

The argument's conclusion follows logically if which
one of the following is assumed?

(A) Anyone with a master's degree and without a
felony conviction is eligible for appointment to
the executive board.
(B) Only candidates eligible for appointment to the
executive board can be accepted for the
position of Executive Administrator.
(C) An undergraduate degree is not necessary for
acceptance for the position of Executive
Administrator.
(D) If Murray did not have a felony conviction, he
would be accepted for the position of
Executive Administrator.
(E) The felony charge on which Murray was
convicted is relevant to the duties of the
position of Executive Administrator.


Can anyone please explain this one answer B

sq720 wrote:6. An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment
to the executive board. Further, no one with a felony
conviction can be appointed to the board. Thus,
Murray, an accountant with both a bachelor's and a
master's degree, cannot be accepted for the position of
Executive Administrator, since he has a felony
conviction.


(B) Only candidates eligible for appointment to the
executive board can be accepted for the
position of Executive Administrator.


Can anyone please explain this one answer B

B because the issue is about executive board while argument is about executive administrator. Since the candidate coudnt qualify for exe board he will not qualify for admn post as well when none who can not qualify for board also do not qualify for admn...

Scope Shift: The first part is about executive level jobs, the second part is about a job called "Executive Admin.". Therefore B.

supporter assumption which connect "accepted " with " appointed"