QUESTION TEXT: Editorialist: Landis, one of this city's top…
QUESTION TYPE: Sufficient Assumption
CONCLUSION: Landis violated his official duties by spending $10,000 to redecorate his office.
REASONING: It is immoral to spend $10,000 while many people in the city live in poverty.
ANALYSIS: The editorialist argues that Landis has violated his official duties regardless of where the money came from. This tells us that any information about the money’s source is irrelevant.
There is a clear missing link in this argument. The editorialist argues that Landis acted immorally, and uses that to support the claim that he violated his official duties. To bridge the gap, we need to link immoral behaviour with a violation of Landis’ duties. If we skim for an answer that mentions Landis’ official duties, we will find that there is only one.
___________
- The editorialist says Landis is guilty of a violation regardless of the money’s source, so this doesn’t help us draw the conclusion.
- This solidifies the claim that Landis acted immorally, but does not help connect immoral behaviour to a violation of his duties.
- Knowing Landis was aware of the redecorating project still doesn’t tell us why it’s a violation of his duties.
- CORRECT. If Landis has an official duty to act morally, then we can properly conclude that because he acted immorally, he violated his official duties.
- This answer provides more evidence that redecorating might have been immoral, but doesn’t show us why that is a violation of his duties.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply