Critical Reasoning

28. Since Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible, she will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission. Lee has wanted that job for a long time, and Drabble owes Lee a lot for his support in the last election.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. Mayor Drabble has no political debt that is both of longer standing than the one she owes to Lee and could as suitably be repaid by an appointment to be the new head of the arts commission.
B. There is no one to whom Mayor Drabble owes a greater political debt for support in the last election than the political debt she owes to Lee.
C. Lee is the only person to whom Mayor Drabble owes a political debt who would be willing to accept an appointment from her as the new head of the arts commission.
D. Whether Lee is qualified to head the arts commission is irrelevant to Mayor Drabble's decision
E. The only way that Mayor Drabble can adequately repay her political debt to Lee is by appointing him to head the arts commission.

IMO E

IMO E

ratan_2009 wrote:28. Since Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible, she will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission. Lee has wanted that job for a long time, and Drabble owes Lee a lot for his support in the last election.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. Mayor Drabble has no political debt that is both of longer standing than the one she owes to Lee and could as suitably be repaid by an appointment to be the new head of the arts commission.
B. There is no one to whom Mayor Drabble owes a greater political debt for support in the last election than the political debt she owes to Lee.
C. Lee is the only person to whom Mayor Drabble owes a political debt who would be willing to accept an appointment from her as the new head of the arts commission.
D. Whether Lee is qualified to head the arts commission is irrelevant to Mayor Drabble's decision
E. The only way that Mayor Drabble can adequately repay her political debt to Lee is by appointing him to head the arts commission.

E

my answer is A

E sounds strong to me.

ratan_2009 wrote:28. Since Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible, she will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission. Lee has wanted that job for a long time, and Drabble owes Lee a lot for his support in the last election.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. Mayor Drabble has no political debt that is both of longer standing than the one she owes to Lee and could as suitably be repaid by an appointment to be the new head of the arts commission.
B. There is no one to whom Mayor Drabble owes a greater political debt for support in the last election than the political debt she owes to Lee.
C. Lee is the only person to whom Mayor Drabble owes a political debt who would be willing to accept an appointment from her as the new head of the arts commission.
D. Whether Lee is qualified to head the arts commission is irrelevant to Mayor Drabble's decision
E. The only way that Mayor Drabble can adequately repay her political debt to Lee is by appointing him to head the arts commission.

I have to go with Ozlemg on this one. The answer should be A.

According to the argument, the mayor's criteria for paying her debts is "as soon as possible" - in other words, First come, first served. If the mayor had some other outstanding debt before her debt to Lee, a debt that can be paid with the same appointment, then the mayor will pay that debt first - because she pays her debts as soon as possible. Thus, in order to reach the conclusion that the mayor will actually give the job to Lee, we must assume that there's no other candidates with a stronger case for getting the job than Lee.

E indeed goes too far - I don't have to assume that the arts director is the ONLY way of paying Lee in order to assume that he gets the job. It's a strengthening point indeed - If E is true and it's the only way to pay Lee, then the Mayor had better give him the job (or she won't be able to pay him at all), but it's not an assumption we have to make in order to reach the conclusion that she WILL give him the job - she may give him the job even if there are other ways to pay him, just because he wanted it.

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:

ratan_2009 wrote:28. Since Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible, she will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission. Lee has wanted that job for a long time, and Drabble owes Lee a lot for his support in the last election.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. Mayor Drabble has no political debt that is both of longer standing than the one she owes to Lee and could as suitably be repaid by an appointment to be the new head of the arts commission.
B. There is no one to whom Mayor Drabble owes a greater political debt for support in the last election than the political debt she owes to Lee.
C. Lee is the only person to whom Mayor Drabble owes a political debt who would be willing to accept an appointment from her as the new head of the arts commission.
D. Whether Lee is qualified to head the arts commission is irrelevant to Mayor Drabble's decision
E. The only way that Mayor Drabble can adequately repay her political debt to Lee is by appointing him to head the arts commission.

I have to go with Ozlemg on this one. The answer should be A.

According to the argument, the mayor's criteria for paying her debts is "as soon as possible" - in other words, First come, first served. If the mayor had some other outstanding debt before her debt to Lee, a debt that can be paid with the same appointment, then the mayor will pay that debt first - because she pays her debts as soon as possible. Thus, in order to reach the conclusion that the mayor will actually give the job to Lee, we must assume that there's no other candidates with a stronger case for getting the job than Lee.

E indeed goes too far - I don't have to assume that the arts director is the ONLY way of paying Lee in order to assume that he gets the job. It's a strengthening point indeed - If E is true and it's the only way to pay Lee, then the Mayor had better give him the job (or she won't be able to pay him at all), but it's not an assumption we have to make in order to reach the conclusion that she WILL give him the job - she may give him the job even if there are other ways to pay him, just because he wanted it.

Hi Geva@MasterGMAT,
I thought it's a defender assumption. I've read in couple of posts here at BTG itself that if the author says the something can achieved by a particular way then his assumption is that - that's the only way.
In other words,The only way that Mayor Drabble can adequately repay her political debt to Lee is by
appointing him to head the arts commission.
If I negate it in my own words there are other ways to pay the debt other than appointing him a new head of the arts commission.
THEN "she will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission." falls apart.
Please correct me if I've gone wrong somewhere.

Thanks!

M09 wrote: Hi Geva@MasterGMAT,
I thought it's a defender assumption. I've read in couple of posts here at BTG itself that if the author says the something can achieved by a particular way then his assumption is that - that's the only way.
In other words,The only way that Mayor Drabble can adequately repay her political debt to Lee is by
appointing him to head the arts commission.
If I negate it in my own words there are other ways to pay the debt other than appointing him a new head of the arts commission.
THEN "she will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission." falls apart.
Please correct me if I've gone wrong somewhere.

Thanks!

That's kind of my point - if there are other ways to repay Lee, it DOESN't make the conclusion fall apart - the mayor might still make Lee the head of the arts commission even though there are other ways to repay him.

A is what you call a defender: negate A, and you have that mayor drabble DOES have a political debt that both of longer standing that Lee's, and can be repaid by this appointment. In other words, f you negate A, you get something that DOES make the conclusion fall apart - she won't give the job to Lee, because there's someone else first.

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:

ratan_2009 wrote:28. Since Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible, she will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission. Lee has wanted that job for a long time, and Drabble owes Lee a lot for his support in the last election.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. Mayor Drabble has no political debt that is both of longer standing than the one she owes to Lee and could as suitably be repaid by an appointment to be the new head of the arts commission.
B. There is no one to whom Mayor Drabble owes a greater political debt for support in the last election than the political debt she owes to Lee.
C. Lee is the only person to whom Mayor Drabble owes a political debt who would be willing to accept an appointment from her as the new head of the arts commission.
D. Whether Lee is qualified to head the arts commission is irrelevant to Mayor Drabble's decision
E. The only way that Mayor Drabble can adequately repay her political debt to Lee is by appointing him to head the arts commission.

I have to go with Ozlemg on this one. The answer should be A.

According to the argument, the mayor's criteria for paying her debts is "as soon as possible" - in other words, First come, first served. If the mayor had some other outstanding debt before her debt to Lee, a debt that can be paid with the same appointment, then the mayor will pay that debt first - because she pays her debts as soon as possible. Thus, in order to reach the conclusion that the mayor will actually give the job to Lee, we must assume that there's no other candidates with a stronger case for getting the job than Lee.

E indeed goes too far - I don't have to assume that the arts director is the ONLY way of paying Lee in order to assume that he gets the job. It's a strengthening point indeed - If E is true and it's the only way to pay Lee, then the Mayor had better give him the job (or she won't be able to pay him at all), but it's not an assumption we have to make in order to reach the conclusion that she WILL give him the job - she may give him the job even if there are other ways to pay him, just because he wanted it.

Hi Geva,

Why is C wrong? Negating C implies that if there are more than one person to whom the mayor owes debt and are willing to accept art position than its not guaranteed that she will certainly appoint it to Lee.

How have you ruled out C? Thanks for your help.

thanks a lot 2 all i was confused between a and e

DarkKnight wrote:

Geva@MasterGMAT wrote:

ratan_2009 wrote:28. Since Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible, she will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission. Lee has wanted that job for a long time, and Drabble owes Lee a lot for his support in the last election.

Which one of the following is an assumption on which the argument depends?
A. Mayor Drabble has no political debt that is both of longer standing than the one she owes to Lee and could as suitably be repaid by an appointment to be the new head of the arts commission.
B. There is no one to whom Mayor Drabble owes a greater political debt for support in the last election than the political debt she owes to Lee.
C. Lee is the only person to whom Mayor Drabble owes a political debt who would be willing to accept an appointment from her as the new head of the arts commission.
D. Whether Lee is qualified to head the arts commission is irrelevant to Mayor Drabble's decision
E. The only way that Mayor Drabble can adequately repay her political debt to Lee is by appointing him to head the arts commission.

I have to go with Ozlemg on this one. The answer should be A.

According to the argument, the mayor's criteria for paying her debts is "as soon as possible" - in other words, First come, first served. If the mayor had some other outstanding debt before her debt to Lee, a debt that can be paid with the same appointment, then the mayor will pay that debt first - because she pays her debts as soon as possible. Thus, in order to reach the conclusion that the mayor will actually give the job to Lee, we must assume that there's no other candidates with a stronger case for getting the job than Lee.

E indeed goes too far - I don't have to assume that the arts director is the ONLY way of paying Lee in order to assume that he gets the job. It's a strengthening point indeed - If E is true and it's the only way to pay Lee, then the Mayor had better give him the job (or she won't be able to pay him at all), but it's not an assumption we have to make in order to reach the conclusion that she WILL give him the job - she may give him the job even if there are other ways to pay him, just because he wanted it.

Hi Geva,

Why is C wrong? Negating C implies that if there are more than one person to whom the mayor owes debt and are willing to accept art position than its not guaranteed that she will certainly appoint it to Lee.

How have you ruled out C? Thanks for your help.

It's the same thing as E - it's a supporting premise, but not a necessary assumption. I don't HAVE to assume this for the conclusion to be true.