we call this question a sufficient assumption question. The reason it's called that is because, well, look at what the question stem is saying.

The argument's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed. So this is a little advanced. This requires your knowledge of the class, the lessons on conditional logic.

But even without that, we're going to try to, just by our intuitive common sense, understand what this means.

They're telling you that there's an argument above, right, because they say there's a conclusion. If there's a conclusion, that implies there's an argument above.

And they're saying the conclusion currently doesn't follow logically. But if we assume one of the following, right, if we assume one of the following,

then the conclusion does follow logically. Follows logically means it's valid, means it becomes a perfect argument.

All we have to do is assume one of these things, which is why it's called a sufficient assumption, because with the assumption, it's sufficient for our argument to be a valid one.

So let's read this argument, figure out what the premises are, what the conclusion is, what the missing link is.

We're going to be using a little bit of logic here to translate, and that's a language that's covered in a logic lesson that you haven't gotten to yet.

But let's read here. An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board.

So see, they're already telling a lot of stuff here. An undergraduate degree is necessary for the appointment to the executive board.

So if you are appointed to the executive board, what do I know about you? Well, for sure, you have an undergraduate degree.

Why? Because they said an undergraduate degree is necessary for an appointment to the executive board.

So if you are appointed to the executive board, I know for a fact you have an undergraduate degree.

And then they say no one with a felony can be appointed to the board.

So if you're appointed to the board, I also know that you don't have a felony.

So see, that's what these two statements are. They're statements that can be translated into what we call conditional logic.

So here, even without knowing how to translate this, without knowing the language formally, we can use our intuitions here.

No one with a felony conviction can be appointed to the board.

So if you are appointed to the board, then I know for sure you don't have a felony conviction because that's what this sentence says.

So I know two things now about people appointed to the board.

They have an undergraduate degree and they don't have a felony conviction.

So they say thus, Murray, an accountant with both a bachelor's and a master's, has this, has an undergraduate degree.

He has a bachelor's. But that doesn't really help very much.

It doesn't really help very much because if you are appointed to the board, you have an undergraduate degree.

That doesn't mean everyone who has an undergraduate degree is appointed to the board.

So that doesn't really help very much. But he has one of these necessary conditions.

And we're concluding thus, he cannot be accepted for the position of executive administrator.

That is the conclusion. Executive administrator, no. He can't. This is Murray. He can't be accepted for this.

Why? Because of these two things and because since here's another premise.

They're sneaking this premise in here into this last sentence.

This last sentence is very convoluted. Part of it is conclusion. Part of it is premise.

And this is a conclusion. This is a premise. It's because of the word since.

And there's a lesson on four since because. Those three words, four since because, indicate conclusion premise structure.

So if you're not familiar with that, if it's not intuitive, look up that lesson.

So given that we know this is a premise and this is a conclusion, we already mapped the conclusion here.

Cannot be accepted for a position of executive administrator. So that's right here.

And the premise here is that because he has a felony conviction, right, he has a felony conviction.

OK, if he has a felony conviction, what do we know for sure?

We know this relationship between being appointed to the executive board, meaning that you can't have a felony conviction.

Right. I'm telling everyone who's who's able to be appointed to executive board doesn't have a felony conviction.

And you tell me Murray has a felony conviction. Then I have to say, well, then, therefore, he cannot be appointed to the to the executive board.

That I know for sure. Why? Because he has a felony conviction. OK, so that's the that's the what we call a sub conclusion that we get to draw here.

We'll just move this down a little bit. So see what they're doing in the premises.

They supplied us with all of this stuff. They expect you to understand logic enough to be able to draw this sub conclusion yourself.

That therefore, Murray cannot be appointed to the executive board. They expect you to know this.

So given that now we have this as something else to use because we're we're able to draw this conclusion on our own right now, we can use it to support this.

So if we can conclude safely, validly conclude that therefore Murray cannot be appointed executive board.

All we really need that is this. If you are not able to be appointed to the executive board, then you cannot be an executive administrator.

And now we have a valid argument because we know Murray cannot be appointed to the executive board.

And if we know this premise, if we have this, which we don't have, this is not premise.

We can just this is nowhere. We can't just make this premise up. Right.

This one we quote unquote made up, but not really, because we drew it.

We drew this conclusion validly from the premises that they did give us.

But this one, we're just sort of, you know, where did this come from? Right.

It came from nowhere. It came from the fact that that's what we need. This is the answer choice.

This is a sufficient assumption answer choice. Why is it? Because with this, now we have a valid argument.

Murray cannot be appointed to the executive board. And if you can't be appointed to the executive board, then you can't be an executive executive administrator.

Therefore, Murray can't be an executive administrator. So let's look for an answer choice that says this.

So this is not something I want to look at at first because it just doesn't have the elements I need.

I need some executive. I need executive administrator and I need appointed appointed to executive board.

So only candidates eligible for appointment to the executive board can be accepted for a position of executive administrator.

That's perfect. I see that's that that's them telling you that if if you are except if you are accepted for executive administrator, you must.

You must be eligible for appointment to the executive board. Right. Which is exactly what we need.

Does I know it doesn't look like exactly what we need, but it is because it's saying the same thing.

This implies that if you are see if if if I tell you this thing is necessary for this thing.

Well, then, of course, if you if you fail this thing, then you necessarily then you must fail this thing.

Right. Why? Because because I just said this thing is necessary for this thing.

So if you fail this thing, if you fail the necessary thing, then of course you fail this this other thing.

Right. Which is why these two are logically equivalent statements. So, again, this is this question is very logic heavy.

And you haven't gone to the lesson on logic yet. So if you don't have a independent background,

you didn't take a logic class or something. This this might not make sense to you.

I mean, I hope it does, but at least some sense it should make at least some sense to you, but maybe not crystal clear.

But anyway, there's a there's a later lesson on that covers logic in depth.

OK. And now for the other ones, why are they wrong? Well, they're wrong simply because it's not what we need.

Right. See, this question is very particular. It's not asking for you just make the argument better.

There are some questions that like that just strengthen the argument.

That's not what this question is. This question is asking you to make this argument valid.

So these other answers are wrong simply because they don't make the argument valid because they're not this.

Great. How is that going to force this conclusion out of out of our existing out of our existing premises?

It's not easy with this additional premise. We don't get to conclude this.

But again, you see, we don't get to force this conclusion out. If Murray didn't have a felony conviction, he would accept it.

Again, it just doesn't matter. Felony charge on which Murray is convicted is relevant to duties of executive administrator.

OK, fine. I mean, you see, he is really trying to bait you to make an assumption.

He is trying to bait you to think that if you didn't know this is what you needed,

if you didn't know this is the rigor with which the correct answer choice is arrived at,

you would think he was a great answer choice because you would think, oh, because he has a felony charge,

the executive administrator position must not be open to him.

Why? Because you would assume that the executive administrator position demands no felony charge.

But that's not. Where did they say that? Where did they say executive administrator position demands no felony charge?

You can't just make that assumption yourself. I mean, you don't get to just say this position requires no felony charge.