Lahar: We must now settle on a procedure for deciding on meeting agendas. ███ ██████ ████████████ ██████ █████ ████████ █████████ ████████ ████████ █████ ██ █████████ ███ ████ ██ █ ██████████ █████████ ███████ ██ █████████ ███████ █ █████████ ███ ███████ ███ ██ ████████████ ███ ██████ ██████ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████ ███████ ███████ ██ ████████ █████
Lahar concludes that the club should decide meeting agendas by majority vote. He bases this on the fact that the club’s constitution provides three options: unanimous consent (which he says is unlikely), assigning the task to committee (which he says leads to factionalism and secret deals), or majority vote. By rejecting two of the constitution’s options, Lahar concludes that the club should use majority vote to decide meeting agendas.
Lahar uses process of elimination to reach his conclusion. He points out that the club’s constitution offers three options for deciding meeting agendas, and by eliminating two, he concludes that the remaining option should be implemented.
Lahar's argument does which one ██ ███ ██████████
rejects suggested procedures ██ ██████████████ ███████
claims that one █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██████ ███ ████████ █████ ████████ ██ ███ ████
suggests a change ██ █ ████████████ ██ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ██████████████
recommends a choice █████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ███████████ ███████
supports one preference ██ ███████ ███████ █████ ███ ████ █████████ ████████████