Further evidence bearing on Jamison's activities must have come to light. On the basis of previously available eviden...

Meredith on September 13, 2019

Can someone answer this question please? Thanks.

Skylar on September 13, 2019

@heidiz @Meredith Maybe I can help.

This is a parallel reasoning question, so it's important to understand the pattern of reasoning in the given argument before proceeding to evaluate the answer choices. In this argument, a conclusion about something that "must" have happened is presented (in this case, that further evidence must have come to light). Then, the argument states what would have happened if this activity hadn't happened ("it would have been impossible to prove that Jamison was a party to the fraud"), and the opposite of this would-have hypothetical situation is confirmed ("Jamison's active involvement in the fraud has now been definitively established"). In other words, a conclusion is first made, and then evidence stating an activity that would have otherwise happened is presented and stated to be untrue. With this in mind, let's proceed to the answer choices.

Answer choice B is correct because it displays the same pattern with different components. First, a "must" conclusion is made ("Turner must not have taken her usual train to Nantes"). Then, the argument points out what would have happened if this hadn't occurred ("had she done so, she could not have been in Nantes until this afternoon"), and the opposite of that 'would have' statement is confirmed ("she was seen having coffee in Nantes at 11 o'clock this morning").

Answer choice E displays a different pattern of reasoning and is therefore incorrect. The first sentence mirrors the same pattern that we see above - it makes a conclusion statement about something that "must" have occurred ("LaForte must have deeply resented being passed over for promotion"). Then, it states that "only someone who felt badly treated would have made the kind of remark LaForte made at yesterday's meeting." This does not closely match the pattern in the question/in answer choice B because it does not first state what would've happened if the thing that "must" have occurred did not and then proceed to show the existence of the opposite. This can be tricky to see. Another way to tell E may not be the best choice is to note that we cannot assume the phrases feeling "deeply resented being passed over for promotion" and "felt treated badly" have the exact same meaning.

Let me know if you need any more clarification. Hope this helps!