Critical Reasoning

I think, the writer want to explain like this.

(1) Larson --> X (unavoidable scheduling conflict)
(2) Franks --> X (he does not quite have the assertiveness the task)
(3: Conclusion) L (X), F (X) --> Parker !! Can do it.
(It assumes that Parker doesn't have
-1. unavoidable scheduling conflict (or)
-2. the assertiveness the task.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?
(B) The task cannot be assigned to anyone other than a supervisor in the shipping department.
(D) The task cannot be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think, (B) seems right but It's a idea from real-world. (I think it could be an Out Of Scope)
But, The conclusion depends on the assumption that
"The task cannot be assigned to
-1. unavoidable scheduling conflict (or)
-2. the assertiveness the task.)

Thus, I think (D) is the answer.

@everyone: the correct answer is definitely (B) as both Stuart and Kevin pointed out. As Stuart pointed out, the question is fine but the source for the OA is bad.

@kkckc--those aren't assumptions. Instead, they are STATED evidence (assumptions are UNSTATED).

**

@mundasingh--the stimulus DOES say that Parker must be assigned the task because he is the only remaining supervisor. In fact, that is a good paraphrase of the entire argument.

**

...however, the evidence never did establish that the task must be assigned to a supervisor in the first place. Thus, the author is assuming that the task can't be assigned to a non-supervisor.

Give (B) the denial test:

The task CAN be assigned someone other than a supervisor.

...then, what happens to the argument that Parker MUST be assigned the task BECAUSE he's the only remaining supervisor?

...it falls apart. Hence, the argument DEPENDS on assuming (B).

What about denying (D)?

The denial would be:

The task CAN be assigned to someone who has a scheduling conflict.

The argument about Parker having to be assigned the task remains unscathed because the reason the author offers for why the task MUST go to Parker has nothing to do with Parker having a scheduling conflict.

Testluv wrote:@everyone: the correct answer is definitely (B) as both Stuart and Kevin pointed out.

@kkckc--those aren't assumptions. Instead, they are STATED evidence (assumptions are UNSTATED).

**

@mundasingh--the stimulus DOES say that Parker must be assigned the task because he is the only remaining supervisor. In fact, that is a good paraphrase of the entire argument.

**

...however, the evidence never did establish that the task must be assigned to a supervisor in the first place. Thus, the author is assuming that the task can't be assigned to a non-supervisor.

Give (B) the denial test:

The task CAN be assigned someone other than a supervisor.

...then, what happens to the argument that Parker MUST be assigned the task BECAUSE he's the only remaining supervisor?

...it falls apart. Hence, the argument DEPENDS on assuming (B).

What about denying (D)?

The denial would be:

The task CAN be assigned to someone who has a scheduling conflict.

The argument about Parker having to be assigned the task remains unscathed because the reason the author offers for why the task MUST go to Parker has nothing to do with Parker having a scheduling conflict.

I thought

, the only supervisor in the shipping department other than
Larson and Franks.

is an appositive .It just modifies Parker by giving additional information about him . The stimulus doesnt say So, the task must be assigned to Parker since he is the the only supervisor in the shipping department other than
Larson and Franks.

@Munda--I see where you're coming from. You are correct that the last clause of the stimulus is an appositive but it is not JUST an appositive. What role does that last clause play in the arguer's reasoning?

If we look at the argument's structure, we see that the first two sentences provide reasons that eliminate other people from being assigned to the task.

So far, the only thing this establishes is that those two people can't be assigned the task but presumably it would be open to numerous others.

However, the author then draws an extreme conclusion that it is Parker who MUST be assigned the task (and therefore no-one else).

If we were to ask the arguer WHY he thought that, he would respond with "Parker is the only other supervisor." (So, the role of that clause in the argument's reasoning is that of evidence.)

At which point, you may fairly ask him whether the task HAS to be assigned to a supervisor--that's his assumption.


Takeaways:

--in argument-based questions, if a clause is not the conclusion, ask whether it relates to the conclusion. If it does relate to the conclusion in some way, then it plays some role in the argument, and most likely that of evidence (other possibilities would be counterconclusion or counterevidence).
--picture an argument as a dialogue between you and the arguer. He argues THIS because of THAT. Try to think about how you would respond or object...then negate the objection. That's a great way of solving assumption questions.