The question stem says the argument's conclusion can be properly inferred if which of the following is assumed.

So conclusion properly inferred if assumed, that makes this a sufficient assumption question.

The correct answer, if you add it to the premises, will guarantee the conclusion.

We're told that the chairperson should not have released the Election Commission's report to the public.

or rather a value judgment, about what should not have happened.

The chairperson shouldn't have released this report to the public for,

and the word for signals that we're about to get support for the first half of this sentence.

That confirms for me that this part is the conclusion of the argument,

and the premise is the chairperson did not consult any other members of the commission

about releasing the report before having it released.

So the premise is didn't consult any other member of the commission before releasing it,

and based on that, the author reaches the conclusion should not have released.

Now so far the argument seems pretty simple.

It wasn't very difficult to spot what the conclusion is and what the premise is,

and our job now is just to pick an answer that will make this premise guarantee this conclusion.

We can actually go ahead and anticipate the kind of answer we're looking for

because you'll notice that in the conclusion we have this new idea of

should not have released the report.

In a sufficient assumption question, whenever you have a new idea in the conclusion,

and by new idea I mean an idea that's not mentioned in the premise,

then that tells you at a minimum the correct answer has to include that new idea.

Now in this case, we really just want to make a bridge between the premise and the conclusion.

We want an answer that will establish that if you did not consult any other member of the commission,

then that proves you should not have released it.

So with that in mind, let's take a look at the answers.

Let's start with answer choices B and E because it usually comes down to the other three.

Now if we add this to the argument,

we still have no way of reaching this conclusion that the report should not have been released

because the premise doesn't tell me when something should not be released,

and answer choice B also doesn't tell me anything about when something should not be released,

so how am I ever going to guarantee the conclusion with answer choice B?

This value judgment about how something should not have happened,

you could also think of it as a prescriptive claim.

This prescriptive claim currently does not have any support in the premise or in answer choice B,

so there's no way that B plus the premise can get to this conclusion.

That's why it's wrong.

Some members of the commission would have preferred that the report not be released to the public,

but does that mean that you shouldn't have released it

because some of them would have preferred not to?

E doesn't tell me when you should not release something,

so adding E to the argument will never allow you to reach the conclusion

that something should not have been released.

The right answer I know needs to tell me when something should not be released.

Now it doesn't have to use the exact same words,

but it should at least tell me something was not acceptable,

not permissible,

it was not allowed,

something like that,

and neither B or E tell me that.

the chairperson would not have been justified in releasing the commission's report

if any members of the commission had serious reservations about the report's content.

Now structure-wise, this is the kind of answer that should be under close consideration

because this does allow us to potentially reach the conclusion

that something would not have been justified,

that the release of the report would not have been justified.

So now we just have to confirm that the if part matches the premise.

If the if part of answer choice C is something that would be triggered by this fact,

then that would prove that the chairperson should not have released the report.

So let's see what the if condition says.

If any members of the commission had serious reservations about the report's content.

Do I know whether that's true?

No, the premise doesn't say anything

about whether members of the commission had serious reservations.

I don't know whether they had serious reservations.

Did some of them not want to release it?

I don't know.

So adding answer choice C to the argument would have no impact

because I have no idea whether the if part is going to be triggered.

That's why answer choice C is wrong.

If I knew from the premise that there were some members

who had reservations about the report's content,

then C would be a good answer, but I just don't know that.

the chairperson would have been justified in releasing the report

only if each of the commission's members

would have agreed to its being released had they been consulted.

Now structurally, this is another answer like C that should be under consideration

because this would, in theory, allow us to reach a conclusion

that something was not justified, that releasing the report was not justified.

That's because the way D is phrased is,

it's telling us that the chairperson would have been justified

only if they met this condition.

So if I can prove, based on this premise,

that we don't meet this necessary condition,

the part after the only if,

if I can prove that that's not met, that that's not true,

then I can use D to reach the conclusion

that it should not have been released.

So let's see what the condition says.

The condition says each of the commission's members

would have agreed to its being released had they been consulted.

Now the question I have is, do I know that that's not true?

Do I know that there's at least one commission member

who would not have agreed to its being released had they been consulted?

And the answer is, I just don't know.

All that the premise tells me is that

the chairperson did not consult any member of the commission.

Would some of those members have agreed if they were consulted?

The premise is just silent on that.

Now I know that answer choice D is very tempting

because it sounds similar to what the premise is talking about,

but there is a very big distinction

between consulting a member of the commission.

So that means actually checking in with them beforehand.

There's a very big difference between that idea

and the idea of whether someone would have agreed

had they been consulted.

The situation that D is referring to

involves the commissioner member's mindset.

In order for D to be the correct answer here,

we would need to get into the mindset of a commission member and say,

oh, well, at least this person wouldn't have agreed.

If you had asked them, they would not have given you permission.

That's what we would have to know.

But the premise I'm given just doesn't tell me anything

about the mindset of members of the commission.

Now, if you're still struggling with understanding why D is wrong,

let me frame it another way.

Right now, from the premise, we know that the commissioner,

or rather the chairperson,

did not consult any member of the commission

before releasing the report.

Now, is it possible that if the chairperson did ask

each of the other members,

that they would have said, okay, it can be released?

Do I have any reason to think that that's not true right now?

That if the chairperson actually did call them up

or set up a meeting with them

or otherwise communicate with them,

that if the chairperson did that,

do I have any reason right now to think

that those other members would not have agreed to its release?

No, I have no reason to think that they wouldn't have.

Now, I don't have any reason to think that they would have agreed either,

but the premise just doesn't tell me anything

about the opinions of the other members.

So because I don't know anything about the opinions of the other members,

how can I say that it's not true

that each of the commission's members would have agreed

to its being released had they been consulted?

I don't know that that's not true.

And so that's why D is wrong.

Because if I add D to the argument,

I wouldn't know whether the chairperson

failed to meet the necessary condition here.

And let me just go ahead and clean that up

because it's probably getting in the way if you're reading it.

But the point is, if I add D to the argument,

I just wouldn't know whether this necessary condition here is not met.

That's why D is wrong.

which says,

it would have been permissible for the chairperson

to release the commissioner's report to the public

only if most other members of the commission

had first given their consent.

So structurally, this is another good answer

because in theory, it could allow me to conclude

that the report should not have been released.

Now, notice that they do use a different word here

rather than saying justified.

They just said permissible.

But that's okay.

Because if I can show that this necessary condition

for permissibility has not been met,

then A would allow me to prove

that it was not permissible for the chairperson to release the report.

And if something's not permissible,

that's another way of saying you should not do it.

So the question right now is,

do I have enough based on this premise

to say that this necessary condition

for releasing the report has not been met?

Well, let's see.

That necessary condition is

most other members of the commission

had first given their consent.

So this is what is required for release.

Most, meaning over half,

of other members had to give consent for the release.

Do I have enough to say that that condition was not met?

Well, if I know that the chairperson

did not consult any other member of the commission,

that means they didn't consult anybody.

And so if they didn't consult any other member of the commission,

how could they have possibly gotten

over half of the other members' consent?

If they didn't consult any member of the commission,

then that would imply that

no other member actually gave consent.

And so if no other member gave consent before the release,

then that means we have not met this requirement.

It is not true that over half of them gave consent.

And so if you haven't met this requirement for release,

then it's not permissible.

And that's why answer choice A is correct.

If you add A to the argument,

then the premise we're given

is enough to say this requirement is not met,

and therefore it's not permissible.

Or in other words, the report should not have been released.

Now, I know that sometimes people have a problem with answer choice A

because they just don't like the word most.

And this is where it really helps to understand

that we are not doing a necessary assumption question.

We are doing a sufficient assumption question.

The only criteria for the correct answer is

if that answer is assumed,

can we properly infer the conclusion?

It does not matter whether an answer is necessary for the logic of the argument.

Now, very often in a sufficient assumption problem,

the right answer ends up being both sufficient and necessary.

But not all the time.

Sometimes a correct answer is just sufficient,

and it's not necessary.

And that's what's happening here.

If you thought the word most made this wrong,

you probably were thinking,

well, the argument doesn't need to assume

that over half of other people had to give their consent.

It just needs to assume

that at least one other person gave consent.

Now, if that was your line of reasoning,

then sure, that makes sense.

A is not necessary.

But that doesn't matter.

The question is, if A were true,

would that allow this premise to prove this conclusion?

And as I explained earlier, it absolutely would.

And just in case it helps, here's a visual.

Let's say that there were five other members of the commission.

According to Answer Choice A,

in order for it to be permissible to release,

I had to get consent from at least three out of these five,

from most of them.

So I need to at least get three out of these five to give consent.

Was that requirement met?

Well, no, because we didn't consult any of them.

So we didn't get this person's consent, that person's consent.

We didn't get anyone's consent at all.

Because if you didn't consult them,

then there's no way that you could have gotten their consent.

It doesn't make sense for them to have consented

without you consulting them about the release.

So the premise is saying we didn't get consent from anybody.

That means it's not permissible.

Now, as I mentioned, you may have been thinking,

oh, I'm looking for an answer that says

you have to get consent from at least one of the members.

And so I was looking for an answer that says

this is what was required,

get consent from at least one of the members.

And sure, that would have been a sufficient assumption as well,

because we know that the chairperson didn't consult anybody,

so they didn't get even one person's consent.

But that doesn't mean A is wrong,

because it might be stronger than what's required,

but it's still sufficient.