Great question. This is a strengthen with a sufficient premise question. We're looking for an answer choice that would help validate the application of the rules we've been given.
We know that
1) Meeting addresses - - >issues relevant to a majority of those attending 2) no issues addressed at meeting relevant to a person - ->person should not be required to go to the meeting
1) Issue at Meeting - >Rel. Majority 2) /Relevant to person - >/Req. to Attend
Application: Terry should not be required to go to the meeting (/Req. to Attend)
We know that an answer that would trigger no issues addressed at the meeting being relevant to Terry would help us to get to the application of the rules. We need to trigger /Relevant to person
Answer A is incorrect because it discusses a presentation, and this is not mentioned anywhere in the stimulus. We can get rid of this choice.
Answer B is incorrect because it also discusses Terry making a presentation. This has no bearing on the argument and doesn't help us justify the conclusion.
Answer C says no issue relevant to Terry could be relevant to a majority of those attending the meeting. We know from our first premise that if an issue isn't relevant to a majority of people at a meeting, then the issue is not addressed at the meeting. If none of the issues that are relevant to Terry are addressed at the meeting, then that means that if an issue is discussed at the meeting, then it won't be relevant to Terry. Therefore, the sufficient condition for our second premise is true, which allows us to conclude that Terry should not be required to attend the meeting. This is our correct answer.
Answer D is incorrect because if it's true, then there could still be issues that are relevant to Terry, so it does not help us justify the application of the principle in the stimulus.
Answer E is incorrect because even if a majority of issues at the meeting aren't relevant to Terry, there could still be issues that are relevant to Terry. And if there are issues relevant to Terry, then we can't justify that Terry should not be required to attend the meeting. Therefore, this answer is out.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any questions!
