PrepTest 78, Section 3, Question 20
The company president says that significant procedural changes were made before either she or Yeung was told about them. But, according to Grimes, the contract requires that either the company president or any lawyer in the company's legal department be told about proposed procedural changes before they are made. Thus, unless what Grimes or the company president said is incorrect, the contract was violated.
The company president says that significant procedural changes were made before either she or Yeung was told about them. But, according to Grimes, the contract requires that either the company president or any lawyer in the company's legal department be told about proposed procedural changes before they are made. Thus, unless what Grimes or the company president said is incorrect, the contract was violated.
The company president says that significant procedural changes were made before either she or Yeung was told about them. But, according to Grimes, the contract requires that either the company president or any lawyer in the company's legal department be told about proposed procedural changes before they are made. Thus, unless what Grimes or the company president said is incorrect, the contract was violated.
The company president says that significant procedural changes were made before either she or Yeung was told about them. But, according to Grimes, the contract requires that either the company president or any lawyer in the company's legal department be told about proposed procedural changes before they are made. Thus, unless what Grimes or the company president said is incorrect, the contract was violated.
The argument's conclusion can be properly inferred if which one of the following is assumed?
Yeung is a lawyer in the company's legal department.
Neither Grimes nor Yeung was told about the procedural changes until after they were made.
No lawyer in the company's legal department was told about the procedural changes until after they were made.
If the company's president was told about the procedural changes before they were made, then the contract was not violated.
If no lawyer in the company's legal department was told about the procedural changes before they were made, then the contract was violated.
Explanations
This is a complicated argument. Let's break it down carefully.
First, we get some context from the company president: significant changes happened, and no one told them or Yeung (whoever that is).
Second, Grimes (another weird name drop), relays the contract details to us: if changes are to be made, then the president or a lawyer from legal must be told about the changes.
Then we get a messy conclusion: The contract was violated, unless the president or Grimes are mistaken, that is. This alleges that the contract was definitely violated unless someone can prove the president or Grimes incorrect.
It turns out to be a Sufficient Assumption question, so we need to prove the conclusion true—that the contract was broken, or that it wasn't, and either Grimes or the president goofed up.
Let's see.
Nah, total trap. We aren't told Yeung's a lawyer. Yeung might be the president's executive assistant tasked with relaying 100% of the information they receive back to the president. Even if Yeung's a lawyer from legal, it's possible some other lawyer from legal was informed about the changes. And although that would prove the president was mistaken, but it would follow the contract requirements.
No chance. We know Yeung wasn't told, at least according to the president. And who cares if Grimes is told? That's irrelevant to the conclusion because we don't know if Grimes is a lawyer from legal.
Perfect. This proves the conclusion. If no lawyer was told about the changes, and the president wasn't told, and one or the other needed to be told to follow the contract, then the contract was broken short of Grimes or the president making a mistake.
Nah. This makes sense in context, but it doesn't prove the conclusion that the contract was violated unless someone made a mistake.
Nope. This conditional is already baked into Grimes's testimony about the contract's requirements. It would still leave open the possibility that the president was told leaving the contract unbroken.
0 Comments