Self-study
Editorialist: Landis, one of this city's top elected officials, recently spent $10,000 to redecorate his office. ████ ██████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██████ ███████ █████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ █████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ████████ ███████ ██ ███████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████ ██ ████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ██ ████████
Summary
The author concludes that Landis violated his official duties. This is based on the fact that Landis’s spending of $10,000 was immoral.
Missing Connection
The conclusion asserts that Landis violated his official duties. But we have no idea from the premise or from the contextual statements what Landis’s official duties include. Why does spending $10,000 in a way that’s immoral constitute a violation of official duties? We want to learn that Landis’s official duties require the avoidance of immoral spending.
24.
The editorialist's conclusion follows logically ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ████████
a
The money Landis ████ ███ ███ ███ ███ ██████
Learning the origin of the money does not establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.
b
It is immoral ██ █████ █████ ██ ██████ █████ ████ █████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ █████ ████████████
We already know as a premise that Landis’s spending was clearly immoral. Our goal is to prove that Landis’s spending was a violation of official duties. (B) doesn’t establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.
c
Landis knew about ██ ████████████ ██ ███ ████████ ██ ██████████ ███ ███████
What Landis knew concerning the redocoration doesn’t establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.
d
Every public official ███ ██ ████████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███████ ████████
(D) establishes that avoiding immoral actions (such as immoral spending) is part of Landis’s official duties. So the fact that Landis engaged in immoral spending proves that Landis violated his official duty to avoid immoral actions.
e
Had Landis not █████ ███ █████ ████████████ ███ ███████ ██ █████ ████ ████ ████ ██ ████ █████████ ███████ ██ ███ █████
What Landis would have done with the money had he not spent it on redecorating doesn’t establish what is part of Landis’s official duties or whether spending money immorally is a violation of those duties.