Self-paced
The company president says that significant procedural changes were made before either she or Yeung was told about them. But, according to Grimes, the contract requires that either the company president or any lawyer in the company's legal department be told about proposed procedural changes before they are made. Thus, unless what Grimes or the company president said is incorrect, the contract was violated.
20.
The argument's conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?
a
Yeung is a lawyer in the company's legal department.
(A) doesn’t establish that no lawyer in the legal department was told. Sure, we know Yeung wasn’t told. But there could have been other lawyers who were told.
b
Neither Grimes nor Yeung was told about the procedural changes until after they were made.
(B) doesn’t establish that no lawyer in the legal department was told.
c
No lawyer in the company's legal department was told about the procedural changes until after they were made.
(C) establishes that no lawyer in the legal department was told before the changes were made. Now we know that neither of the requirements were met: the president wasn’t told, and no lawyer in the legal department was told. So the contract was violated.
d
If the company's president was told about the procedural changes before they were made, then the contract was not violated.
(D) doesn’t establish that no lawyer in the legal department was told.
e
If no lawyer in the company's legal department was told about the procedural changes before they were made, then the contract was violated.
(E) doesn’t provide any new information that we can’t get from the premises. We want to establish that no lawyer in the legal department was told; we already know that if this didn’t happen, the contract was violated.