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.

according to me answer is B, but in answer sheet it is diffrent... need answers with explanation..

Actually my first answer was B but after recognising your 2nd post IMO C

one premise is : "Franks cannot do the assignment is that he does not quite have the assertiveness the task requires" Not X--> then not Y.

In C, it is stated that X-->then Y.

A: We can not assume this. The only thing we know about Parker is the is the only supervisor other than L&F.
B.This has a strong voice. "cannot be" is extreme.
D.same with B
E. Noone is also strong here.

the answer given is D.

I have no hint why...

Even i chose B but options are close,if we negate D i.e. "The task CAN be assigned to anyone who has ANY kind of conflict" then conclusion falls

'B' is the first choice. But as you mentioned OA is 'D', providing some explanation:
A) can be rejected - Larson has more assertiveness than Franks but less assertiveness than the task requires.
B)
C) 'a reason'. It doesn't say only reason. Thus it is possible some other reasons also play a role.
D)
E) out of scope
don't know how to reject B. But if B is rejected, only answer left is D.

I was asked to jump in here...

I can assure you that D should NOT be the correct answer! Remember that assumptions are things that are absolutely required by the argument.

Now D says "(D) The task cannot be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict." This is not required by the argument. It is true that one reason that "Larson cannot do the assignment is that she has an unavoidable scheduling conflict." But that is an "unavoidable" scheduling conflict" so that does not mean that the same thing would apply if Larson had just a regular scheduling conflict.

It is not required that ANY scheduling conflict means you cannot have the task.

B is much better. If two supervisors are out and only one left AND if we have to a have a supervisor then we get the conclusion.

Thanks david for ur explanation..

Thanks David but i could not get it fully. How about if we negate B & D, conclusion falls in each of the cases.
Negation of B: The task CAN be assigned to anyone other than a supervisor in the shipping department.
Negation of D: The task CAN be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict.

Somehow i am getting the feeling that "Negation of D" defies the conclusion more STRONGLY than "Negation of B" because in "Negation of B" we are also assuming that there are other people than supervisors.

Please explain.

Vikram -

You are not negating D correctly. That is why I avoided the negation in my explanation because for many people this technique can go astray - so I leave it until absolutely needed.

Here is the original D, "The task cannot be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict."

Here is your negation, "The task CAN be assigned to anyone who has any kind of scheduling conflict."

This is too definite. How about, "The task might be able to be assigned to someone even if that person has a type scheduling conflict."

Now the emphasis of D as it is written is that ANY type of scheduling conflict means that you cannot have the assignment. The key word here is ANY. Meaning that if you have the tiniest scheduling conflict, such as the assignment runs into your usual lunch break or it would mean leaving 10 minutes late, then you would not be able to have the assignment.

Since this statement is absolute - "ANY scheduling conflict means you CANNOT have the assignment" therefore the negation should simply offer a possibility - As is "There might be some type of scheduling conflict that you can have that would still allow you to get the assignment."

This clearly has no impact on the conclusion, since with Larson we are talking about a specific type of scheduling conflict - an "unavoidable one."

It is harder to negate answer choices then you thought isn't it? You have to negate the central meaning and even the spirit of the answer choice, rather than a specific word!

This is why you should leave the negation for the very end when you cannot decide between choices. This is why my explanation above focused on D as it was written to show that it is not a REQUIRED assumption to talk about ANY scheduling conflict when Larson had a particular type of conflict.

It was as if I said that "the basketball player is 7 feet tall and so he could not drive the Honda Civic car" and they offered the assumption that "No tall person can drive the car." You see that this is not required. Tall could mean 6' 2" and that person could certainly drive the car. So I am not assuming that ALL tall people cannot drive it only a specific type - the extremely tall!

Same thing with this stimulus and choice D. D says "any scheduling conflict" this is not required as we are talking about an "unavoidable conflict."

Hope it helps!

Got it.... with the negation that you presented there is scope that larson may or may not be assigned the task (correct me if i misunderstood it).

I tried to negate B on same lines - task might be assigned to someone who is not a supervisor in a shipping company. (is it correct)

Would like to know your thought process with which you were able to eliminate D so convincingly in first go.

Yes!!

And if you do this with B and the task may or may not be assigned to someone who is not a supervisor then the conclusion fails because there is no reason to single out these three as the contenders for the task.

Very good!

Sometimes the best way to negate is to simply say, "what if it is not true that" and add the answer choice.

Such as with choice B, say "what if it is not true that the task cannot be assigned to anyone other than a supervisor in the shipping department." This gets you to exactly what you said - "the task might or might not be assigned to a supervisor in the shipping company."

Thanks David

Thanks David....explanation was really helpful....!!