Self-study
Conclusion It was misleading for James to tell the Core Curriculum Committee that the chair of the Anthropology Department had endorsed his proposal. ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██████████ ███ ████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ████████████ ███ ████ ██ ███ █████ ████████ ███ ███ ████████ ███ ███ ███████████████ █████ █████ ██████████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ██████████
Summary
The author concludes that James misled the committee when he said his proposal was approved by the chair of the anthropology department. This is because the chair said she would only endorse his proposal if his draft included all recommendations he would make to the committee.
Notable Assumptions
The argument lays out a necessary condition for the proposal’s endorsement: that it contain all the final recommendations James would make to the committee. The argument is attempting to take the contrapositive of this statement in order to show that James’ proposal was not endorsed and he misled the committee, but we don’t actually know if he failed the necessary condition. This failed condition is what the author is assuming—that the proposal did not contain all of James’ final recommendations.
15.
The argument relies on which ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████████
a
If the chair ██ ███ ████████████ ██████████ ███ ███ ███████ ███████ ████████ ████████████████ ███ ████ ██████████ █████████ █████ ██ ████████ ██ █████████ █████
We don’t care about whether or not the committee will actually implement the changes. We only care about whether James was misleading them, so (A) is not necessary.
b
The chair of ███ ████████████ ██████████ █████ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ███ ███████████████ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ █████████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ███ █████
Whether or not the chair would have been opposed to any other recommendations is irrelevant. She told James she wouldn’t approve his proposal if it didn’t include all his final recommendations, so her hypothetical reaction to those recommendations doesn’t impact the argument.
c
James thought that ███ ████ ██████████ █████████ █████ █████████ ███ ████████ ███████████████ ████ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ███ ███████████████ ███ ████ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████████ ███████████
Like (D), (C) is attempting to provide a potential reason why James might have lied, but we don’t care about his motives. It could have been intentional or an honest mistake, without changing whether or not he misled the committee.
d
James thought that ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██████████ █████ ████ ████████ ███ ██ ███ ███████████████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ██████████
Like (C), (D) is attempting to provide a potential reason why James might have lied, but we don’t care about his motives. It could have been intentional or an honest mistake, without changing whether or not he misled the committee.
e
The draft proposal ████ ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████████ ██████████ ███ ████ ███ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ███ ███████████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ██████████ ██████████
We must know that the proposal failed the necessary condition established in the premises—that it include all the final recommendations—and (E) successfully fills that gap.