Support If Suarez is not the most qualified of the candidates for sheriff, then Anderson is. Thus, Conclusion if the most qualified candidate is elected and Suarez is not elected, then Anderson will be.
The argument proceeds by presenting a set (the most qualified candidates for a sheriff’s election) and then giving a conditional statement that restricts this set to only two possible members (either Suarez or Anderson). It then reaches the valid conditional conclusion that, if a member of this set is being chosen, and it’s not Suarez, then it must be Anderson.
The reasoning in which one of the following is most similar to the reasoning in the argument above?
If the excavation contract does not go to the lowest bidder, then it will go to Caldwell. So if Qiu gets the contract and Caldwell does not, then the contract will have been awarded to the lowest bidder.
Mismatched premises and conclusion. (A) proceeds by presenting a set (the lowest bidders on a contract), but it does not restrict this set to only two members. It instead presents the conditional statement Contract Not To Lowest Bidder→Caldwell. It then validly concludes that the absence of the necessary condition leads to the absence of the sufficient condition. The stimulus, meanwhile, restricts a set to two members, and then concludes that one member must be chosen if the other isn’t.
If the lowest bidder on the sanitation contract is not Dillon, then it is Ramsey. So if the contract goes to the lowest bidder and it does not go to Dillon, then it will go to Ramsey.
(B) proceeds by presenting a set (the lowest bidders on a sanitation contract) and then giving a conditional statement that restricts this set to only two possible members (either Dillon or Ramsey). It then reaches the valid conditional conclusion that, if a member of this set is being chosen, and it’s not Dillon, then it must be Ramsey.
If Kapshaw is not awarded the landscaping contract, then Johnson will be. So if the contract goes to the lowest bidder and it does not go to Johnson, then it will go to Kapshaw.
Mismatched conclusion. (C) proceeds by presenting a set (those awarded the landscaping contract) and then giving a conditional statement that restricts this set to only two possible members (either Kapshaw or Johnson). (C) validly concludes that Kapshaw must be chosen if Johnson is not chosen, but it brings up the irrelevant idea of the lowest bidder. The stimulus does not bring up any irrelevant ideas in its conclusion, so (C) doesn’t match.
If Holihan did not submit the lowest bid on the maintenance contract, then neither did Easton. So if the contract goes to the lowest bidder and it does not go to Easton, then it will not go to Holihan either.
Mismatched premises and conclusion. (D) proceeds by presenting a set (the lowest bidders on a contract), then giving a conditional relationship that shows that if Holihan is not a member of this set, then neither is Easton. It then invalidly concludes that, if a member of this set is being chosen and it’s not Easton, then it won’t be Holihan either. The stimulus, however, restricts membership of a set to two individuals before reaching a valid conclusion, so (D) doesn’t match.
If Perez is not the lowest bidder on the catering contract, then Sullivan is. So if Sullivan does not get the contract and Perez does not get it either, then it will not be awarded to the lowest bidder.
Mismatched conclusion. (E) proceeds by presenting a set (the lowest bidders on a catering contract) and then giving a conditional statement that restricts this set to only two possible members (either Perez or Sullivan). It then reaches the valid conditional conclusion that, if neither Perez nor Sullivan is chosen, then a member of their set will not be awarded the contract. The stimulus, meanwhile, restricts a set to two members, and then concludes that one member must be chosen if the other isn’t.
Answer five questions and we'll estimate your score.
It takes about five minutes.
Take the free diagnostic