Examkin

Question

Difficulty: MediumSufficient Assumption

Financial analyst: Any regional bank that aggressively expands its commercial lending operations faces increased regulatory scrutiny. Over the past year, Sentinel Bank has aggressively expanded its commercial lending operations. It is clear, therefore, that Sentinel Bank will have to hire additional internal compliance officers.

The conclusion of the financial analyst's argument follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

  1. Every regional bank that faces increased regulatory scrutiny is required to hire additional internal compliance officers.Answer
  2. B
    Any regional bank that hires additional internal compliance officers does so because it faces increased regulatory scrutiny.
  3. C
    A regional bank will not have to hire additional internal compliance officers unless it aggressively expands its commercial lending operations.
  4. D
    Regulators generally require regional banks that expand their lending operations to significantly improve their internal compliance standards.
  5. E
    Aggressively expanding commercial lending operations is the only action that causes a regional bank to face increased regulatory scrutiny.

Answer

The correct assumption is that every regional bank facing increased regulatory scrutiny is required to hire additional internal compliance officers.
The correct answer perfectly bridges the gap in the argument's logic. The premises establish that Sentinel Bank faces increased regulatory scrutiny. By adding the universal rule that ANY bank facing such scrutiny MUST hire additional internal compliance officers, the conclusion regarding Sentinel Bank becomes logically undeniable.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the argument.
Conclusion: Sentinel Bank will have to hire additional internal compliance officers.
This is the claim the analyst is ultimately trying to prove, signaled by 'It is clear, therefore, that...'
2
Identify the premises provided to support the conclusion.
Premise 1: Aggressively expanding commercial lending -> Increased regulatory scrutiny. Premise 2: Sentinel Bank -> Aggressively expanded commercial lending.
Breaking down the argument into conditional logic reveals what has been established as fact.
3
Determine the intermediate conclusion supported by the premises.
Because Sentinel Bank expanded its lending, it must face increased regulatory scrutiny.
Combining Premise 1 and Premise 2 yields a new deduced fact about Sentinel Bank.
4
Identify the logical gap between the intermediate conclusion and the final conclusion.
The argument jumps from 'Sentinel Bank faces increased regulatory scrutiny' to 'Sentinel Bank will have to hire additional internal compliance officers.'
For the argument to be 100% valid, there must be a rule connecting the established fact (scrutiny) to the unproven claim (hiring officers).
5
Formulate the sufficient assumption that bridges the gap.
If a bank faces increased regulatory scrutiny, then it must hire additional internal compliance officers.
Adding this conditional statement to the premises creates an unbroken chain of logic from Sentinel Bank's actions directly to the conclusion.

Key Concept

Identifying Deductive Gaps and Validating Arguments
Rate this question

Topics

Sufficient Assumption

More questions from this topic