Self-study
Committee member: Conclusion We should not vote to put at the top of the military's chain of command an individual whose history of excessive drinking is such that that person would be barred from commanding a missile wing, a bomber squadron, or a contingent of fighter jets. ██████████ ████ ██ ███████████ ████ ███ ███ █████
Avoid Overbroad Principles
The answer choices in this question lean very hard on the idea that the principle to which the argument “conforms most closely” will 1) justify the conclusion in this particular instance 2) without justifying a whole bunch of other stuff the author may not necessarily support.
For example, if we’re looking to justify our stance that “some criminals should be punished,” a principle that says “anyone who even thinks about committing a crime should be LAUNCHED INTO THE SUN” would technically justify our conclusion, but it would do so in a seriously overbroad way.
The committee member wants a principle that says this drunk shouldn’t be at the top because they’re not allowed to be in the middle.* Something like “people who are disqualified from middle-tier jobs shouldn’t get the top-tier job.” For the most part, the wrong answer choices will justify this judgement in a way that also justifies other judgments with which the committee member may not agree.
*The above discussion of the principle cuts out the stimulus’ last sentence, treating it more as context than as true support. This matches the eventual logic of the answer choices, but there are up-front reasons to suspect it’s mere fluff rather than an actual premise.
If the last sentence said something like “Such an individual would not have the respect of their subordinates,” there would be every reason to treat the logic as “can’t command squad → no respect → should not vote to put at the top.”
But the actual last sentence is quite broad and awkward to slot into the committee member’s rhetoric. Should we say the principle we need is “if you can’t command a squad, you can’t establish leadership from the top down?” We could, but it’s rhetorically clumsy. That’s an indication that the claim isn’t meant to act as a direct premise – it’s just a snappy side-statement.
13.
The committee member's argument conforms ████ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ███████████
a
No one who █████ ██ ██████ ████ █████████ ████ ██ ██ ████████████ ██████ ████ ████ █████████████
This says “if you’re not allowed to do various important things inside the organization (e.g. command missiles and jets and such), you shouldn’t be allowed to lead the whole thing.”
This matches the core logic at play in the committee member’s reasoning.
(A) does involve the assumption that commanding missile wings and bomber squadrons and such are important jobs in the military. They are, though. Reasonable assumptions about the real world are completely fine in many question types, including PSAr. You just need to be super careful about them in questions that test true logical validity, like MBT, NA, and SA.
b
Whoever leads an ████████████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ █████ █████ ██ ███ █████████████
Two lenses on (B). First, as with the others, this principle is overbroad in that it sets a higher standard for eligibility than the committee member might intend. Perhaps the committe member doesn’t care about actually serving at every single level, and just wants to make sure we don’t have a leader that wouldn’t even qualify to serve at those levels.
Also, the following narrative is possible. First, a candidate rises through the ranks and serves at every level. Next, their drinking retroactively disqualifies them from serving at the lower levels. In this scenario, the committee member would want to bar the candidate from getting the top job, but (B)’s principle would fail to justify that stance.
c
Whoever leads an ████████████ ████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ████ █████████ ███ ██ ███ █████████████
The only reason this is wrong is because it’s overbroad compared to (A). The committee member might be perfectly fine supporting a candidate who doesn’t qualify to be a field medic, say, or a psychiatrist.
d
No one who ██████ ███████████ ██████ ████ █ ██████████ ████████ ████████ █████ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ████████
The only reason this is wrong is because it’s overbroad compared to (A). The committee member might be perfectly fine with drunkards leading lower-level units like, say, the chaplaincy. They just don’t want drunks getting the top job.
e
No one who ██████ ███████ █ ███████ ████ ██████ ██ ██ ███ ███ ██ ███ ██████████ █████ ██ ████████
The only reason this is wrong is because it’s overbroad compared to (A). The committee member might be perfectly fine supporting a candidate who can’t command a missile wing for reasons other than excessive drinking.