Until he was dismissed amid great controversy, Hastings was considered one of the greatest intelligence agents of all...

wufw June 30, 2017

Strengthen with Sufficient Premise

The answer appears to take the form of that of a Strengthen with Sufficient Question, as the argument's logical form is such that it is sufficient to know that his dismissal was justified to know that he was incompetent or disloyal and the answer choice would show existence of the sufficient condition. Please clarify! Thanks!

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

Already have an account? log in

Mehran July 7, 2017

@wufw this is a Strengthen with Necessary Premise question.

Let's break down the argument first.

"It is clear that if his dismissal was justified, then Hastings was either incompetent or else disloyal."

PR: J ==> I or D
not I or not D ==> not J

"Soon after the dismissal, however, it was shown that he had never been incompetent."

P: Not I

"Thus, one is forced to conclude that Hastings must have been disloyal."

C: D

You are correct that (A) would guarantee the conclusion here, but it is also necessary to this argument.

The argument here assumes that the "dismissal was justified" to invoke the principle set forth.

If the dismissal was not justified, this principle would not apply.

As such, when you negate (A), i.e. Hasting's dismissal was not necessarily justified, the argument falls apart so (A) is the correct answer.

Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.