Self-study
Support Cecile's association requires public disclosure of an officer's investments in two cases only: when an officer is authorized to disburse association funds, and when an officer sits on the board of a petrochemical company. ███████ ██ ███████ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ████ ███ ████████ █ █████ ██████ █████████ ██████████ █████ ██ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ████████ ███ ███████████ ██ ████ █████
Summary
There’s no reason for Cecile to publicly disclose her investments right now. Why? Cecile’s associate only requires public disclosure of an officer’s investment in two instances: when an officer is authorized to disburse association funds or when an officer sits on the board of a petrochemical company. Cecile is an officer unauthorized to disburse funds and only sits on the board of a timber business.
Missing Connection
According to premises, Cecile isn’t required by her association to publicly disclose her investments; she isn’t on the board of a petrochemical company and isn’t authorized to disburse funds. Yet the conclusion says there’s no reason, at all, for Cecil to disclose her investments at this time.
How to get from premises to conclusion? We can infer the conclusion if we assume that the public disclosure requirements of Cecil’s association list the only possible reasons for Cecil to publicly disclose her investments right now.
25.
The conclusion of the argument ███████ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████████
a
Cecile will not ██ █████████ ██ █ ████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ████ ██████████ ███ ██ ████████ ██████
Irrelevant. The argument isn’t about Cecile’s future situation, but rather about whether there’s a reason for Cecile to publicly disclose her investments now.
b
Cecile's office and ███ ████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████ █████ ██████ ██ █████████ ██ █████████
The argument isn’t concerned with potential conflicts of interest caused by Cecile’s position. It’s concerned with whether Cecil should publicly disclose her investments right now.
c
The association's requirements ███████ ███ ████ ███████ █████ █████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ████████ ███ ████████████
According to the premises, we know that Cecile isn’t required by her association to publicly disclose her investments right now. If (C) is true, we can infer that there are no reasons, at all, for Cecile to publicly disclose her investments right now, which is the argument’s conclusion.
d
The timber business ██ █████ █████ ██████ ████ ██ █████ ██ █ █████████████ ████████
A petrochemical company owning the timber company is irrelevant. The premises only say that Cecile would be required by her association to publicly disclose her investments if she sat on the board of a petrochemical company.
e
Cecile owns no ███████████ ██ ███ █████████████ █████████
Irrelevant. The argument isn’t about what Cecile’s investments consist of, but rather whether there are any reasons for her to publicly disclose her investments right now.