The correct answer is (B).
(B) Assumption (Sufficient)
Step 1: Identify the Question Type
The "conclusion follows logically if . . . assumed" wording indicates a Sufficient Assumption question, which requires you to select the answer that, in combination with the evidence, would prove the conclusion true. Sufficient Assumption stimuli often contain Formal Logic statements that should be diagrammed.
Step 2: Untangle the Stimulus
Evidence:
If appointment to executive board → undergrad degree
If felony conviction → ~ appointment to executive board
Murray has an undergraduate degree but also a felony conviction.
Conclusion:
Murray cannot be accepted to position of Executive Administrator.
Step 3: Make a Prediction
First, combine the Formal Logic statements of the evidence. The contrapositive of the second statement says:
If appointment to executive board → ~ felony connection.
Therefore, the combination of both statements says that any person appointed to the executive board must have an undergraduate degree and can't have a felony conviction. The contrapositive would be:
If undergraduate degree appointed to OR felony conviction executive board
You know that Murray has a felony conviction. Based on the Formal Logic in the evidence, that means he can't be appointed to the executive board. However, the conclusion says he can't become the Executive Administrator. The "executive board" and the "Executive Administrator" are not necessarily the same thing. The author must be assuming either that the requirements are the same for the Executive Administrator position or that the two are somehow connected in another manner.
Step 4: Evaluate the Answer Choices
(B) is correct because it indicates that eligibility requirements are the same for both the board and the Executive Administrator position.
(A) is incorrect because it does not connect the executive board to the Executive Administrator position. Additionally, the argument discusses a necessary condition for acceptance to the board while this choice provides a sufficient condition. Finally, this choice doesn't describe Murray, whom the conclusion is about, and so it is Out of Scope.
(C) also is incorrect because it does not connect the executive board to the Executive Administrator position. Additionally, while the argument assumes necessary conditions for the position of Executive Administrator (undergraduate degree and no felony conviction), this choice indicates the absence of a necessary condition. Finally, this choice doesn't describe Murray, whom the conclusion is about, and so it is Out of Scope.
(D) may be true but, again, it does not connect the executive board to the Executive Administrator position. Also, again, while the argument assumes necessary conditions for the position of Executive Administrator, this choice indicates a sufficient condition (no felony conviction) for acceptance as the Executive Administrator.
(E) is Out of Scope. Regardless of its relevance to the duties of the position, a felony conviction disqualified Murray. The question is why it disqualified him. This choice, like the other incorrect answers, does not connect the requirements of the board to the requirements of the position.
