Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardIdentifying Sufficient Assumptions

Any municipal planner who prioritizes rapid commercial expansion over sustainable infrastructure inevitably encounters severe zoning disputes. Furthermore, no municipal planner who encounters severe zoning disputes is eligible for appointment to the Regional Planning Commission, unless that planner has secured the unanimous endorsement of the city council. The planner overseeing the newly proposed waterfront district has secured the unanimous endorsement of the city council. Therefore, this planner must not have prioritized rapid commercial expansion over sustainable infrastructure.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the conclusion to be properly drawn?

  1. Any municipal planner who has secured the unanimous endorsement of the city council has avoided encountering severe zoning disputes.Answer
  2. B
    Any municipal planner who avoids prioritizing rapid commercial expansion over sustainable infrastructure secures the unanimous endorsement of the city council.
  3. C
    The planner overseeing the newly proposed waterfront district is ultimately eligible for appointment to the Regional Planning Commission.
  4. D
    Municipal planners who fail to secure the unanimous endorsement of the city council inevitably encounter severe zoning disputes.
  5. E
    Most municipal planners who manage to secure the unanimous endorsement of the city council do not encounter severe zoning disputes.

Answer

The statement that any municipal planner who has secured the unanimous endorsement of the city council has avoided encountering severe zoning disputes.
The correct answer provides the missing conditional link needed to logically guarantee the conclusion. We know from the first premise that prioritizing rapid expansion guarantees severe zoning disputes. Therefore, by the contrapositive, if a planner does NOT have severe zoning disputes, they did NOT prioritize rapid expansion. We are told the waterfront planner has the unanimous endorsement of the city council. By assuming that ANY planner with this endorsement avoids severe zoning disputes, we can conclude that the waterfront planner avoided these disputes, and thus logically must not have prioritized rapid expansion. The second premise regarding the Regional Planning Commission is an intricate distractor designed to misdirect attention from the core conditional chain.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Deconstruct the argument into formal conditional statements.
Premise 1: Rapid Expansion -> Severe Disputes. Premise 2: Severe Disputes AND NO Endorsement -> NOT Eligible. Premise 3: Waterfront Planner -> Endorsement. Conclusion: Waterfront Planner -> NO Rapid Expansion.
Formalizing the logic reveals the structural relationships and isolates the missing link.
2
Determine the necessary condition to prove the conclusion.
By the contrapositive of Premise 1, to prove 'NO Rapid Expansion', we must prove 'NO Severe Disputes' (NO Severe Disputes -> NO Rapid Expansion).
Working backward from the conclusion dictates exactly what intermediate fact must be established.
3
Identify the gap between the given premises and the required intermediate fact.
We know the Waterfront Planner has the Endorsement. We need to prove they have NO Severe Disputes. Therefore, the missing link is: Endorsement -> NO Severe Disputes.
A sufficient assumption must completely bridge the gap between known evidence and the required logical step.
4
Evaluate the options to find the statement that provides absolute guarantee.
The option stating that 'any' planner with the endorsement avoids severe disputes provides the strict, 100% guarantee required to seal the logical chain.
Sufficient assumptions cannot rely on probability ('most' or 'some'); they require deductive certainty.

Key Concept

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions using Conditional Logic
Estimated Time:2m 0s
Rate this question

Topics

Identifying Sufficient Assumptions

More questions from this topic