June 2007 PrepTest, Section 2, Question 6
An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board. Further, no one with a felony conviction can be appointed to the board. Thus, Murray, an accountant with both a bachelor's and a master's degree, cannot be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator, since he has a felony conviction.
An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board. Further, no one with a felony conviction can be appointed to the board. Thus, Murray, an accountant with both a bachelor's and a master's degree, cannot be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator, since he has a felony conviction.
An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board. Further, no one with a felony conviction can be appointed to the board. Thus, Murray, an accountant with both a bachelor's and a master's degree, cannot be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator, since he has a felony conviction.
An undergraduate degree is necessary for appointment to the executive board. Further, no one with a felony conviction can be appointed to the board. Thus, Murray, an accountant with both a bachelor's and a master's degree, cannot be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator, since he has a felony conviction.
The argument's conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?
Anyone with a master's degree and without a felony conviction is eligible for appointment to the executive board.
Only candidates eligible for appointment to the executive board can be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator.
An undergraduate degree is not necessary for acceptance for the position of Executive Administrator.
If Murray did not have a felony conviction, he would be accepted for the position of Executive Administrator.
The felony charge on which Murray was convicted is relevant to the duties of the position of Executive Administrator.
Explanations
Did you spot the change in language? The second sentence says “appointed.” The third sentence says “accepted.” Are those the same? It doesn’t sound like it. The correct answer will say that they are the same (or, in effect, they are the same).
I’m looking for “is not eligible.”
Perfect. This says that you must be eligible for appointment to be accepted. This, in effect, says that “appointed” is the same as “accepted.”
Same as A.
How does this help the conclusion that Murray cannot be accepted? It’s already been established (at least, the author thinks) that Murray cannot be accepted because of his felony conviction.
The felony charge need not be relevant to disqualify him from being appointed.
0 Comments