Critical Reasoning

Professor Edwards must have revealed information that was embarrassing to the university. After all, to have been publicly censured by the head of the university, as Edwards was, a professor must either have revealed information that embarrassed the university or have been guilty of gross professional negligence, and Edwards's professional behavior is impeccable.

Which one of the following arguments exhibits a pattern of reasoning most similar to that in the argument above?

(A) According to company policy, employees who are either frequently absent without notice or who are habitually late receive an official warning. Since Ms. Jensen has never received such a warning, rumors that she is habitually late must be false.

(B) Any employee of Wilkins, Waddel, and Sloan, who discussed a client with a member of the press will either be fired or demoted. But since Wilkins employees never discuss their clients at all, no Wilkins employee will ever be demoted.

(C) Anyone promoted to supervisor must either have worked on the shop floor for three years or have an influential sponsor. Daniels, therefore, has an influential sponsor, since he was promoted to supervisor after a year on the shop floor.

(D) To earn a merit salary increase, an employee of TGX must either bring in new clients or develop innovative products. No innovative products were developed at TGX this year, so TGX employees must have brought in many new clients.

(E) Anyone who is either awarded a letter of commendation or who receives a bonus must be recommended by a company officer. Simon has been recommended by a company officer and will receive a bonus, so he must not have been awarded a letter of commendation.

OA C

Source: Veritas Prep