Critical Reasoning

16. A reason Larson cannot do the assignment is that she has an unavoidable scheduling conflict. On the other
hand, a reason Franks cannot do the assignment is that he does not quite have the assertiveness the task
requires. So, the task must be assigned to Parker, the only supervisor in the shipping department other than
Larson and Franks.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?
(A) Larson has the assertiveness the task requires.
(B) The task cannot be assigned to anyone other than a supervisor in the shipping department.
(C) Franks would be assigned the task if Franks had the assertiveness the task requires.
(D) The task cannot be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict.
(E) No one who is not a supervisor in the shipping department has the assertiveness this task requires.

Please help me with this[/spoiler]

abhirup1711 wrote:16. A reason Larson cannot do the assignment is that she has an unavoidable scheduling conflict. On the other
hand, a reason Franks cannot do the assignment is that he does not quite have the assertiveness the task
requires. So, the task must be assigned to Parker, the only supervisor in the shipping department other than
Larson and Franks.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?
(A) Larson has the assertiveness the task requires.
(B) The task cannot be assigned to anyone other than a supervisor in the shipping department.
(C) Franks would be assigned the task if Franks had the assertiveness the task requires.
(D) The task cannot be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict.
(E) No one who is not a supervisor in the shipping department has the assertiveness this task requires.

Please help me with this[/spoiler]

Hi,
IMO : D
Because if you negate this statement : {The task can be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict.} is false. So it means this is our correct assumption.
This is the priority to assign work to someone.

abhirup1711 wrote:16. A reason Larson cannot do the assignment is that she has an unavoidable scheduling conflict. On the other
hand, a reason Franks cannot do the assignment is that he does not quite have the assertiveness the task
requires. So, the task must be assigned to Parker, the only supervisor in the shipping department other than
Larson and Franks.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?
(A) Larson has the assertiveness the task requires.
(B) The task cannot be assigned to anyone other than a supervisor in the shipping department.
(C) Franks would be assigned the task if Franks had the assertiveness the task requires.
(D) The task cannot be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict.
(E) No one who is not a supervisor in the shipping department has the assertiveness this task requires.

Please help me with this[/spoiler]

Option B is assumed here and hence the right option.

If we negate B, we have "the task can be assigned to at least one person with an other designation than a supervisor in the shipping department. Clearly, the conclusion that "the task must be assigned to Parker, the only supervisor" falls apart.

Ankur87 wrote: Because if you negate this statement : {The task can be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict.} is false. So it means this is our correct assumption.
This is the priority to assign work to someone.

D is quite generic.

Please note that the argument says "Larson cannot do the assignment is that she has an unavoidable scheduling conflict"

What if i say that Patrik has an avoidable scheduling conflict?

So D is definitely out of contention.

In my opinion, the answer should be D as the last sentence read ... other than Larson and Frank, who are both supervisor themselves. Please rectify any misconceptions if there are. Thanks.

The Iceman wrote:

abhirup1711 wrote:16. A reason Larson cannot do the assignment is that she has an unavoidable scheduling conflict. On the other
hand, a reason Franks cannot do the assignment is that he does not quite have the assertiveness the task
requires. So, the task must be assigned to Parker, the only supervisor in the shipping department other than
Larson and Franks.

The argument depends on assuming which one of the following?
(A) Larson has the assertiveness the task requires.
(B) The task cannot be assigned to anyone other than a supervisor in the shipping department.
(C) Franks would be assigned the task if Franks had the assertiveness the task requires.
(D) The task cannot be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict.
(E) No one who is not a supervisor in the shipping department has the assertiveness this task requires.

Please help me with this[/spoiler]

Option B is assumed here and hence the right option.

If we negate B, we have "the task can be assigned to at least one person with an other designation than a supervisor in the shipping department. Clearly, the conclusion that "the task must be assigned to Parker, the only supervisor" falls apart.

Hi,
IMO D
B cant be the answer as it says:
(The task cannot be assigned to anyone other than a supervisor in the shipping department)
but it is a false statement as the reasons are already mentioned:
Larson - for unavoidable scheduling conflict.
Franks - does not quite have the assertiveness the task.
They should not have mentioned the reasons if they wanted to assign the task only to the supervisor.
Because of these reasons only Frank and Larson did not get the task.

Ankur87 wrote:
Hi,
IMO D
B cant be the answer as it says:
(The task cannot be assigned to anyone other than a supervisor in the shipping department)
but it is a false statement as the reasons are already mentioned:
Larson - for unavoidable scheduling conflict.
Franks - does not quite have the assertiveness the task.
They should not have mentioned the reasons if they wanted to assign the task only to the supervisor.
Because of these reasons only Frank and Larson did not get the task.

Let's say that besides Parker there are 100 people in the department including Larson and Frank.

The point to understand here is that even though there are reasons attributed to not giving the assignment to Larson and Franks, it still remains a fact that they are not assigned this assignment. So, they still qualify on the assumption set by option B as would other 98 employees in the department irrespective of the fact whether they are capable of doing the assignment.

Also as i mentioned earlier the argument talks about unavoidable scheduling conflict

So if we say that Patrik has an avoidable scheduling conflict it is possible to assign him the task.

My choice is also B, as Parker qualifies to do the job because he is the only supervisor who is free. There can be other people in the office who do not have unavoidable scheduling conflict, but they cannot be assigned the job because they are not supervisors.
Appreciate everyone's response but I doubt the whether the answer is correct. Can I please have an expert's opinion?

Answer is indeed 'D'.
if you negates then argument fall apart.
The task can be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict.

If these can be done then Larson is apt candidate for work because he have messy schedule.

In B
Conclusion : So, the task must be assigned to Parker,the only supervisor in the shipping department other than Larson and Franks.

Negate B:The task can be assigned to anyone other than a supervisor in the shipping department.

these doesn't dispute argument.
Yes if task can be done by anyone then its fine but the work should be done by candidate who have avoidable scheduling and is assertive enough.

Between theIceman liked your quote:
The harder i practice luckier i get

This is an LSAT Question. It is from the December 2004 LSAT test from the Logical Reasoning section 1, it is question 3 from that section. This is indeed an assumption question.

I have taught this question many times.I can tell you that the Official Answer is certainly B.

I am going to echo much of what Iceman has said here. Iceman is on the right track and I can elaborate...

Here is the setup: First, Larson is completely unable to do the assignment because she has an UNAVOIDABLE scheduling conflict. Forget about Larson she is gone and nothing is being assumed about her. We are told that she cannot do it. It literally says "she cannot do it" so there is nothing assumed here at all. If I said "You cannot be U.S. President because you were not born in the U.S." There is no assumption here, I have stated that you cannot be the President.

Franks is also gone. Forget about Franks, he lacks the assertiveness. So he is out of the picture as well.

But only Franks and Larson are ruled out. So why do we settle on Parker of all the other people in the shipping department? Why not give it someone else? The evidence given is that Parker is the only supervisor other than Larson and Franks.

This is the key statement. It clearly implies that a supervisor must be given the task. As Iceman says if there are 100 people, Larson and Franks are only 2. So what rules out the other 97 besides Parker? The fact that they are not supervisors!

So choice B is the correct assumption.

By the way, the source from which this was drawn misstates the answer. I have seen other postings that claim the answer is D. But as you can see I have looked to the original LSAT test and can assure you the answer is D.