Self-paced
Thomas: Conclusion The club president had no right to disallow Jeffrey’s vote. ████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ █████ ████████ ████████ ████ ████ █████ ████ ███ ████ ███ ███████ █████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ███ ███████ ██ ████ █████████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ █████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ ███ ████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ █████████ █████ ██ █████████ ██ ████ ██████
███████ ██ ████ █████████ ██ ████████████ █████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ████ █████████ ████████ ████████ █████ ███ ██ █ ███████ ██ ████ ████████ ███ ████ ████████ ███ ███████ ████ ██ ████████ ██████████
Break Down Argument
This stimulus presents us with two arguments, but the question stem only asks about Thomas' argument. That means there's no need to analyze Althea's argument, which responds to Thomas. Althea's reply might still give us a hint, but our focus should be on Thomas' argument.
Thomas concludes that the club president was wrong to disallow Jeffrey's vote. Thomas offers a conditional chain as support: according to the club rules, only members in good standing can vote; all members who pay dues are members in good standing; and Jeffrey has paid his dues. If we diagram it out, the argument looks like this:
can vote → good standing
pays dues → good standing
pays duesJeffrey
good standingJeffrey (implied sub-conclusion)
______
can voteJeffrey
Objective: Identify a Flaw
Looking at the diagram, it should be pretty straightforward to spot the issue: Thomas treats being in good standing as a sufficient condition to vote, when it's actually a necessary condition. This is the same flaw that Althea refers to in her rebuttal, although she does so indirectly. Going into the answer choices, we need to find the one that refers to Thomas' sufficient-necessary confusion.
19.
The reasoning in Thomas’ argument ██ ██████ ███████ ███ ████████
a
fails to take ████ ███████ ███ ███████████ ███████ █████████ ███ █████ ██████████ ███ ███ █████ ██████████
The language in (A) is a bit abstract, so let's make it more concrete. In the stimulus, for voting to "not be prohibited" means that a necessary condition has not been failed—in other words, that someone is a member in good standing. And for voting to "be authorized" means that a sufficient condition has been met—that someone is guaranteed a vote.
(A) describes the correct flaw—a sufficient-necessary confusion—in abstract language. But by applying (A) to the concrete ideas in the stimulus, we can see that it in fact accurately describes the flaw in Thomas' argument.
b
offers evidence that █████ █████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ ████████ ██ ██████ ███████████
Thomas never discusses the character of the club president, meaning he does not commit the ad hominem fallacy that (B) refers to.
c
wrongly assumes that ██ █ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ████████ ████ █████████ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ████
Thomas isn't replying to another argument, so it's already unlikely that his flaw will involve misunderstanding someone else. There's only one point where Thomas refers to someone else's claim: he says that Althea admits that properly due-paying members have good standing. But this isn't a mere non-denial, it's an actual admission, so Thomas isn't doing what (C) describes.
d
does not specify ███ █████ ████ ███████ ██ █████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ████
There's nothing in the argument to suggest that the club's voting rules are different depending on the issue at question, meaning as far as we know, the issue is irrelevant. Jeffrey either has the right to vote or not, regardless of what he's voting on. Failing to specify something that's not relevant to the argument isn't a flaw of reasoning.
e
overlooks the possibility ████ ██████ ██ ███ ██ █████████ ██ ███ ████████ █████
Thomas and Althea don't disagree on the rules of the club, only on whether those rules guarantee Jeffrey a right to vote. Because there's no disagreement regarding the substance of the rules, it doesn't matter whether Althea is an authority. And disregarding an irrelevant consideration isn't a flaw.