Self-study
Principle: Support A police officer is eligible for a Mayor's Commendation if the officer has an exemplary record, but not otherwise; Support an officer eligible for the award who did something this year that exceeded what could be reasonably expected of a police officer should receive the award if the act saved someone's life.
███████████ ███████ ████████ ██████ ███████ █ ███████ ████████████ ███ ███████ ████ ██████ ████
Summary
The author concludes: (1) Franklin should get the award; (2) Penn should not.
The principle:
If and only if an officer has an exemplary record, the officer is eligible for the award. (”But not otherwise” made this a biconditional relationship.)
If an officer who’s eligible saved someone’s life, and in saving that life did something that exceeded what’s reasonably expected of an officer, then that officer should get the award.
Missing Connection
To prove that Franklin should get the award, we want to know that he is eligible, that he saved someone life, and that he exceeded what’s reasonably expected of officers.
To prove that Penn should not get the award, we want to know that he is not eligible. To prove that he is not eligible, we want to know that he doesn’t have an exemplary record.
Note that whether Penn saved someone life or exceeded what’s reasonably expected doesn’t help establish that he shouldn’t get the award.
22.
From which one of the █████████ ████ ██ █████ ███ ███ ██████████ ██ ████████ █████ █████ ███ ██████████
a
In saving a █████ ████ ████████ ████ █████ ████████ ███ ████ ████ ██████ █████ █████ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ████████ ████████ ███ ██ █████████ ██████ ███ ████ ████ ████
(A) establishes that Franklin is eligible, saved a life, and went beyond what’s reasonably expected. So Franklin should get the award. (A) also establishes that Penn doesn’t have an exemplary record, which implies that he isn’t eligible. If he’s not eligible, then he shouldn’t get the award.
b
Both Franklin and ████ ████ █████████ ████████ ███ ████ ███████ █████ █ █████ ████ ████████ ███████ ████ █████ ████████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ████ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ████
(B) doesn’t prove that Penn shouldn’t get the award. If Penn has an exemplary record, then he’s eligible. And although he didn’t go beyond what’s reasonably expected, that isn’t necessary to qualify as someone who should get the award. So Penn might be someone who should get the award, perhaps for some other reason unrelated to going beyond what’s expected.
c
Neither Franklin nor ████ ███ ██ █████████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████ ███ ████ ██ ██ ████████ ███████ ████████ ████ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ █████ ████ █████ █████████ ████ ████ █████ ████ ███ ██████ █████ ████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ ██ ███████ █████ ███ ██████████████
If Franklin doesn’t have an exemplary record, then he’s not eligible. So we cannot conclude that Franklin should get the award.
d
At least once ████ █████ ████████ ███ █████ █ ████████ ████ ██ ████ █ ███ ██ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ███ █████ ████████ ████ ████ █████
(D) doesn’t establish whether Franklin is eligible or whether Penn is ineligible. So adding it to the argument would not prove that Franklin should get the award or that Penn should not.
e
Both Franklin and ████ ████ █████████ ████████ ██ ███████ █████████ ████ ████ ████████ ███ █████ ████████ ██████ ███ ██ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ████████ ███ ████████ ████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ █ ██████ ████████ ██ ██ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ████ █████ █ ████████ ████ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ██ ██ ████████
If Penn has an exemplary record, then he’s eligible for the award. The fact that Penn didn’t save a life or exceed what’s reasonably expected does not establish that he shouldn’t get the award. Penn might qualify as someone who should get the award for some reason unrelated to saving lives or exceeding reasonable expectations.