An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board. Further, no one with a felony conviction...

rosemarie on January 20, 2020

Answer choice D

I watched the explanation video, however, I am still confused with answer choice D. Following the logic FC--> not EB--> not EA, I do not understand how not FC--> EB-->EA as in answer choice D, would be incorrect. I also do not understand why you do not negate answer choice D, thank you!

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

BenMingov on February 22, 2020

Hi Rosemarie,

Let me see if I can help out with this question.

The premises in this passage are as follows:

Appointment executive board - > Undergrad degree

Felony conviction - > NOT appointment executive board (contrapositive: Appointment executive board - > NOT felony conviction)

This leads to the conclusion:

Murray, who has undergrad degree and a felony, cannot be Executive Administrator.

Our conclusion when phrased conditionally is:

Felony conviction - > NOT executive administrator

We need to create the chain that will link felony conviction to NOT executive administrator.

We already know that felony conviction leads to NOT appointment executive board.

This gives us:

Felony conviction - > NOT appointment executive board. NOT administrative administrator

We see here that our answer should be one of the following:

NOT appointment executive board - > NOT administrative administrator


Administrative administrator - > Appointment executive board

This is answer choice B.

Answer choice D is irrelevant because we are trying to fully validate the idea that Murray cannot be made executive administrator. Trying to find a way for Murray to do so does not fully validate our argument.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if you have any other questions!