The new nation of Rimbaria has a parliament that is divided into two houses, upper and lower. For a bill to become law, two-thirds of the upper house and one-half of the lower house must approve the bill. The president, however, can block passage of the bill. A new bill that would legalize casino gambling has received unanimous approval from the upper house, and majority approval from the lower house. In addition, the president does not plan to block the bill, in which case it must therefore become law.

Which of the following best identifies a logical weakness in the argument above?

1. The author assumes that a particular criterion for the passage of a bill into law will be met, though this is not made certain.
2.The author has not clarified the full criteria for the passage of a bill into law.
3. The author does not take into account the opinions of the citizens of Rimbaria.
4. The conclusion is actually contrary to the evidence provided.
5. The author does not take into account whether the passage of the bill into law would be sufficient to guarantee the success of casino gambling in Rimbaria.









Can someone please explain why A is wrong?

Veritas Explanation: The conclusion states that the bill will become law IF the president does not block the bill. The exact wording - "in which case" - implies that the passage does depend on this factor. Therefore, the president's approval is NOT assumed.

I didn't get the above explanation.