Since Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible, she will almost certainly appoint Lee to b...

Morad on August 21, 2021

Hi, I'm not a tutor so take my thoughts with a grain of salt. The stimulus is as follows:

Since Mayor Drabble always repays her political debts as soon as possible, she will almost certainly appoint Lee to be the new head of the arts commission. Lee has wanted that job for a long time, and Drabble owes Lee a lot for his support in the last election.

We're asked to identify the assumption in the argument. It's important to note the argument itself is flawed since there's no actual relationship established between Mayor Drabble assigning the position as a means to paying Lee off. It only establishes that Mayor Drabble pays debts back ASAP, she owes a debt to Lee, and Lee wants that position; it then randomly jumps to saying Mayor Drabble will certainly assign Lee the spot. On attack mode to anticipate the answer, here are some of the questions that come to mind immediately:
"Can Mayor Drabble even assign this position?" - If she can't, then the argument is silly.

"Are there other ways that Mayor Drabble could sufficiently pay back Lee?" - If Mayor Drabble can pay Lee back in other ways with other things, then why is it CERTAIN that he'll get the position he wants? Couldn't Mayor Drabble decide she doesn't care what he thinks and just give him a an expensive yacht or some duffle bags of money or a nomination to attend Jeopardy, and then just call it a day?

Or this one which I missed: "If Mayor Drabble always pays her debts back ASAP, then are there any other debts she owes to other people that are longer standing?" - If Lee's the last one to jump on the bandwagon to support Mayor Drabble, then there might be other people who are first in line who Mayor Drabble MUST pay back first because she always pays back ASAP. Why wouldn't they get the position?

It's especially important to note S&N conditions when present in the stimulus since I've noticed that stronger logic statements (rules / principles) tend to get called out. Here the S&N-like condition is Mayor Drabble's commitment to always paying back ASAP.

This takes us to the answer choices:

A) This one immediately tackles the last two assumptions we brought up. For assumption questions, the correct answer choice negated should seriously damage the argument. Negated, the answer choice read that "there is at least one other person who is both ahead of Lee in line to be repaid AND the appointment to the new position is sufficient (they use the word suitable) for that repayment!" If that's the case, then why wouldn't Mayor Drabble give this person the position instead of Lee so she can pay them back ASAP? For an argument with the super strong conclusion stating that it was CERTAIN Lee would get the position, It's a massive logical hole.

B) It doesn't really matter who owes the "largest" debt. There's only a rule about the timeline for debt, not the size of the debt. So all that matters is "when" that debt began and whether Mayor Drabble can pay it off with the appointment.

C) Don't think Mayor Drabble cares about whether anyone is "willing to accept" her payment. If she decides that the payment is sufficient, that's all that matters.
Anyways, if we did the negation test, it would read as "There are people other than Lee who would be willing to accept the position" which doesn't do anything to the argument because let's face it, who wouldn't want to be the "new head of the arts commission?" Everyone loves art.

D) What? I mean maybe Mayor Drabble does care? Who cares anyways? We don't know anything about Lee's qualifications from the argument. All we know is that Mayor Drabble pays her debts back, Lee owns a debt and he wants the spot.

E) This is the one I fell for. Negated, this answer reads: "There are other ways Mayor Drabble can repay Lee than by appointing him as the new head of the arts commission". Let's assess the impact this negation has on the argument and compare it with the negation provided by A.
On one hand, this means that Mayor Drabble could repay Lee in other ways, and that seems pretty good to attack argument since then the argument would have failed to rule out available alternatives. Then again, compared with the damage that answer choice A) does, it doesn't match up with the way the argument and A)'s negation would directly contradict each other. A) brings up alternative appointees who are, by Mayor Drabble's rule, MUCH more deserving of the position. Who cares if Mayor Drabble can pay Lee back only by giving him this position?
Maybe Lee's number 100 in line with 99 other people ahead of him where each person in line ALL want this position and this position is the only way they can be repaid? Then in that case, it doesn't matter whether Lee can only be satisfied with this position. All that matters is that Mayor Drabble repays the first person in line.

This is a tough question in my opinion. I felt like there was a lot of thought that went into determining which of A) or E) was the better option. In terms of being faster, I think it comes down to recognizing that S&N rule that came up, and then understanding that just because Lee both wants it and owns a debt from Mayor Drabble doesn't mean that he should get it.

Sorry for any typos - I wrote it all in one go.

DevinFuller on July 6 at 04:33PM

Give this person a job! Nice analysis! I will be grateful if a staff member can confirm that this persons explanation of answer choice C is correct? Thank you!

Emil-Kunkin on July 6 at 09:31PM

I would mostly agree with the take on C. I would note that my issue with C is that Lee doesn't have to be the only person with a debt that could be paid with the arts job, just the person with the debt that must urgently needs to be filled.

DevinFuller on July 8 at 04:10PM

Thank you!