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.
avifJuly 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.
