Although the charter of Westside School states that the student body must include some students with special educatio...

avif on July 7, 2020


I picked B. Is the reason that it is wrong because that would be a necessary premise but not a sufficient one?

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

Already have an account? log in

shunhe on July 8, 2020

Hi @avif,

Thanks for the question! So let’s recap the argument real quick. We’re told that a school’s charter states that the student body has to have some students with special educational needs, but no students with learning disabilities have enrolled. So, the argument concludes, the school’s in violation of its charter.

Now this is a strengthen with sufficient premise; we’re being asked to assume one of the answer choices to make the conclusion follow. And there’s a couple of issues with (B). One, it doesn’t get at the heart of the issue by connecting the idea of “learning disabilities” and “special educational needs,” which is really what’s needed. The charter is about special education needs, not learning disabilities, so something needs to connect those two concepts. Also, (B) basically restates a premise in the passage, that no students with learning disabilities have yet enrolled in the school. If the passage already states (B), then assuming it won’t help advance the argument in any way. So (B) can’t be the correct answer here.

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

avif on July 9, 2020

Thanks for the quick response. It is different than the passage because while there may have been no new students which enrolled, the school may already have those types of students present. I was wondering if it wouldn't been right if the question would have been a strengthen with necessary premise. I think that is what got me confused.