Editorialist: Landis, one of this city's top elected officials, recently spent $10,000 to redecorate his office. Man...

shunhe on June 2, 2020

Hi @shafieiava,

Thanks for the question! Let’s take a look at the stimulus. We’re told that Landis spend $10k to redecorate his office, and many people think that if he used city funds, then he misused public money which violates his official duties. But the editorialist says that Landis is actually guilty of violating his official duties no matter where them one came from because spending $10k so frivolously is immoral when so many people live in poverty.

Now we’re asked to determine which one of the answer choices, once assumed, will make the argument a valid one. (E) tells us that had Landis not spent the money redecorating he office, it would’ve been used to help alleviate poverty in the city. But this isn’t quite the assumption we need. Even if this were true, based on what we know in the passage, we can’t say that Landis is guilty of violating his official duties if the money would’ve been used to help alleviate poverty in the city. Let’s say that it was his own private money, and if he hadn’t used it on himself, he would’ve used it on poverty. But that doesn’t mean that the fact that he did end up using his own money on himself violates his official duties. We need something else to get to that conclusion, and this is what (D) gets us.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.

Nathaniel-Starkey on October 28, 2021

I was torn between B and D, and ultimately went with B. Could someone help me understand the main problem with B?